What is Rational Choice Theory?

Rational choice theory states that individuals rely on rational calculations to

achieve outcomes that are in line with their personal objectives. These decisions
provide people with the greatest benefit or satisfaction — given the choices
available — and are also in their highest self-interest. Most mainstream
academic assumptions and theories are based on rational choice theory.

Understanding Rational Choice Theory

Rational choice theory assumes that all people try to actively maximize their
advantage in any situation and therefore consistently try to minimize their losses.
In other words, the notion that since rational calculus dictates human
behavior, rationality will be the driving force when making a choice whose
outcome will be maximizing the individual's pleasure or profit.

Rational choice theory also stipulates that all complex social phenomena are
driven by individual human actions. Therefore, an economist, by studying the
rational decisions of the individual, can better understand the behavior of society
as a whole.

A common misconception is the attribution of selfishness to this theory. While

rationality, specifically the idea that individuals acting in their self interest is
logical, is consistent with the selfish narrative, it can also be compatible with
altruism. An individual may choose to be charitable as it might make them feel
better about themselves.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

 Rational choice theory states that individuals rely on rational calculations to

achieve outcomes that are in line with their personal objectives.
 By studying the rational decisions of the individual, economists can better
understand the behavior of society as a whole.
 While rationality, specifically the idea that individuals acting in their self
interest is logical, is consistent with the selfish narrative, it can also be
compatible with altruism.
 Positivism
PHILOSOPHY
WRITTEN BY:
 Herbert Feigl
See Article History

Positivism, in Western philosophy, generally, any system that confines itself

to the data of experience and excludes a priori or metaphysicalspeculations.
More narrowly, the term designates the thought of the French
philosopher Auguste Comte (1798–1857).
As a philosophical ideology and movement, positivism first assumed its
distinctive features in the work of Comte, who also named and systematized
the science of sociology. It then developed through several stages known by
various names, such as empiriocriticism, logical positivism, and
logical empiricism, finally merging, in the mid-20th century, into the already
existing tradition known as analytic philosophy.
The basic affirmations of positivism are (1) that all knowledge regarding
matters of fact is based on the “positive” data of experience and (2) that
beyond the realm of fact is that of pure logic and pure mathematics. Those
two disciplines were already recognized by the 18th-century Scottish
empiricist and skeptic David Hume as concerned merely with the “relations of
ideas,” and, in a later phase of positivism, they were classified as purely
formal sciences. On the negative and critical side, the positivists became
noted for their repudiation of metaphysics—i.e., of speculation regarding the
nature of reality that radically goes beyond any possible evidence that could
either support or refute such “transcendent” knowledge claims. In its basic
ideological posture, positivism is thus worldly, secular, antitheological, and
antimetaphysical. Strict adherence to the testimony of observation and
experience is the all-important imperative of positivism. That imperative was
reflected also in the contributions by positivists to ethics and moralphilosophy,
which were generally utilitarian to the extent that something like “the greatest
happiness for the greatest number of people” was their ethical maxim. It is
notable, in this connection, that Comte was the founder of a short-
lived religion, in which the object of worship was not the deity of the
monotheistic faiths but humanity.
There are distinct anticipations of positivism in ancient philosophy. Although
the relationship of Protagoras—a 5th-century-BCE Sophist—for example, to
later positivistic thought was only a distant one, there was a much more
pronounced similarity in the classical skeptic Sextus Empiricus, who lived at
the turn of the 3rd century CE, and in Pierre Bayle, his 17th-century reviver.
Moreover, the medieval nominalist William of Ockham had clear affinities with
modern positivism. An 18th-century forerunner who had much in common with
the positivistic antimetaphysics of the following century was the German
thinker Georg Lichtenberg.
The proximate roots of positivism, however, clearly lie in the French Enlightenment,
which stressed the clear light of reason, and in 18th-century British empiricism,
particularly that of Hume and of Bishop George Berkeley, which stressed the role of
sense experience. Comte was influenced specifically by the
Enlightenment Encyclopaedists (such as Denis Diderot, Jean d’Alembert, and others)
and, especially in his social thinking, was decisively influenced by the founder of
French socialism, Claude-Henri, comte de Saint-Simon, whose disciple he had been in
his early years and from whom the very designation positivism stems.
The Social Positivism Of Comte And Mill

Comte’s positivism was posited on the assertion of a so-called law of the three phases
(or stages) of intellectual development. There is a parallel, as Comte saw it, between
the evolution of thought patterns in the entire history of humankind, on the one hand,
and in the history of an individual’s development from infancy to adulthood, on the
other. In the first, or so-called theological, stage, natural phenomena are explained as
the results of supernatural or divine powers. It matters not whether
the religion is polytheistic or monotheistic; in either case, miraculous powers or wills
are believed to produce the observed events. This stage was criticized by Comte
as anthropomorphic—i.e., as resting on all-too-human analogies. Generally, animistic
explanations—made in terms of the volitions of soul-like beings operating behind the
appearances—are rejected as primitive projections of unverifiable entities.
The second phase, called metaphysical, is in some cases merely a
depersonalized theology: the observable processes of nature are assumed to
arise from impersonal powers, occult qualities, vital forces,
or entelechies(internal perfecting principles). In other instances, the realm of
observable facts is considered as an imperfect copy or imitation of eternal
ideas, as in Plato’s metaphysics of pure forms. Again, Comte charged that no
genuine explanations result; questions concerning ultimate reality, first
causes, or absolute beginnings are thus declared to be absolutely
unanswerable. The metaphysical quest can lead only to the conclusion
expressed by the German biologist and physiologist Emil du Bois-Reymond:
“Ignoramus et ignorabimus” (Latin: “We are and shall be ignorant”). It is a
deception through verbal devices and the fruitless rendering of concepts as
real things.
The sort of fruitfulness that it lacks can be achieved only in the third phase,
the scientific, or “positive,” phase—hence the title of Comte’s magnum
opus: Cours de philosophie positive (1830–42)—because it claims to be
concerned only with positive facts. The task of the sciences, and of knowledge
in general, is to study the facts and regularities of nature and society and to
formulate the regularities as (descriptive) laws; explanations of phenomena
can consist in no more than the subsuming of special cases under general
laws. Humankind reached full maturity of thought only after abandoning the
pseudoexplanations of the theological and metaphysical phases and
substituting an unrestricted adherence to scientific method.
In his three stages Comte combined what he considered to be an account of
the historical order of development with a logical analysis of the leveled
structure of the sciences. By arranging the six basic and pure sciences one
upon the other in a pyramid, Comte prepared the way for logical positivism to
“reduce” each level to the one below it. He placed at the fundamental level the
science that does not presuppose any other sciences—viz., mathematics—
and then ordered the levels above it in such a way that each science depends
upon, and makes use of, the sciences below it on the scale:
thus, arithmetic and the theory of numbers are declared to be presuppositions
for geometry and mechanics, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology (includin
g physiology), and sociology. Each higher-level science, in turn, adds to the
knowledge content of the science or sciences on the levels below, thus
enriching this content by successive specialization. Psychology, which was
not founded as a formal disciplineuntil the late 19th century, was not included
in Comte’s system of the sciences. Anticipating some ideas of 20th-
century behaviourism and physicalism, Comte assumed that psychology, such
as it was in his day, should become a branch of biology (especially
of brain neurophysiology), on the one hand, and of sociology, on the other. As
the “father” of sociology, Comte maintained that the social sciences should
proceed from observations to general laws, very much as (in his view) physics
and chemistry do. He was skeptical of introspection in psychology, being
convinced that in attending to one’s own mental states, these states would be
irretrievably altered and distorted. In thus insisting on the necessity of
objective observation, he was close to the basic principle of
the methodology of 20th-century behaviourism.
Positivism and Rational Choice
Punishment, though necessary for reducing crimes, should always be proportional to the degree, to
which the criminal acts infringe the sanctity of possessions, human well-being and the welfare of the
state. It is in punishing perpetrators of crimes that the concepts of positivism and rational choice come
into play. For the punishment to be in line with the social contract, it should be fair as to the
magnitude and the cause (Nichols, 2006). The two concepts are contradictory as to what motivates
criminal activities and which of the two is the most effective in determining the kinds of punishment to
be administered to the perpetrators, and which one is the best in preventing or at least reducing
criminal activities. The two concepts clash and cause serious debates as to which is the best one. The
paper discusses the two concepts in details and their impact on criminology (Gomory, 2001).

Concept of positivism
Positivism argues that the human nature is not always constant, but is also determined by the society.
The positivism theory sees people as adapters and responders to social circumstances. In the
positivism theory it is important to note that for every human being, there is a group, for which he or
she is an associate. The group acts in either a normal, that is, the right way, or abnormal, that is, the
wrong one, depending upon the social values of the group. Positivism is concerned with deviance and
criminal, environmental and psychological reasons for a persons failure to adopt the norms of a
system the majority are supposed to follow (Fruehwald, 2001). Positivism in criminology, therefore,
has a universal view of a society consisting of normal people, who follow the norms that are agreeable
to the society. Deviants are under-socialized or pathological individuals, who are not able to take their
place in central grounds of a health society. With this understanding, it will be easier to handle
criminal activities in society. Positivism will, therefore, deal with the causes of criminal acts
collectively, unlike the rational choice, dealing with an individual. Social reaction against deviants will,
thus, be a problem, only if the law enforcement and the judiciary system are not efficient in their role
of representing the collectivity as a whole. In positivism, the main focus of criminology should be on
the criminal actor, the environment, rather than focusing so much on the law. Positivists reject
completely the notion of a rational man being able to exercise the free will. The prime task of
positivism in criminology is the complete elimination of crime therefore, positivism advocates therapy
as a way of achieving this (Gomory, 2001).

One of the supporters of the positivism adaptation in criminology, Enrico Feri, argues that this is not
merely a movement but as a Copernican transformation of human beings conception of crime and
human nature. Positivism viewed its role as the methodical removal of the free will school of thought
and replacing it with the science of society, taking by itself the role of crime eradication (Gomory,
2001). Most psychological and sociological studies on crime and deviant acts have been done the
positivist framework. In the last fifty years or so, the United States supreme courts have adapted
themselves to the positivist view of criminology. The courts do not identify the constitutional limits on
the view of a crime. For instance, the legislature does not define offences based on the mental state
aspect. They judge certain actions as criminal without investigating the mental state of the
perpetrator, which could have led him to committing the crime (Hartung Blustein, 2002).

Many people opposing positivism in criminology argue that the concept is more value-loaded than
objective. The positivism theory tends to deal with the social make-up instead of facts that can be
proven scientifically. Positivism deals with negative environmental persuasions that lead to criminal
activities. Some of the negative environmental influences are alienation, deprivation, overpopulation
and being exposed to deviant cultures (Fruehwald, 2001).

Rational choice concept

The concept of rational choice is founded on the investigation of human behavior developed by Cesare
Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham (Neyhouse, 2002). The key points of the theory are human beings act
rationally rationality in human beings means calculation human beings select their behaviour, whether
compliant or deviant, out of their rational calculation the key element of calculation engages a cost
benefit analysis the choice made, with all other conditions constant, will be aimed at making the
individuals benefits maximum the choice can be handled by the perception and comprehension of the
possible punishment that will result from an act proven to be in contrast with the social contract. the
states has the responsibility of observing order and the common good by creating a system of laws
and the swiftness, severity, and certainty of the punishment are the basic aspects in comprehending a
laws capability in controlling human behavior. In the view of the rational choice theory, crime can be
prevented or reduced through policies that can convince criminals to resist criminal activities, holdup
their acts, and keep away from a particular target (Hartung Blustein, 2002).

The rational choice theory underlines the criminal as a decision maker. The rational choice theory
argues that crimes can be committed if the advantages to the offender looks greater than the risks
involved that is, if the pleasures seems greater than pains. The theory assumes that the criminal
seeks to benefit from the criminal behaviour. It involves making choices and decisions regardless of
the consequences. The offenders cognitive capabilities show limited rather than normative rationality.
The theory exhibits greater logic, because most of the criminal activities committed can be explained
by rational choice. The formulation of the theory was based on the additional promise that the
processes of decision making and the factors considered in the making of the decision are likely to
differ at the various stages of the process and among different criminal activities (Fruehwald, 2001).

The rational choice theory argues that every criminal activity can be elucidated by rational choice. For
instance, robbery is done so that the offender can acquire items that can be sold for financial gain
(Nichols, 2006). To prove that the crime is committed out of personal choice, the offender in most
robbery cases come armed with protective items like gloves and masks so as to conceal their identity.
They also appear with means to hide and carry the items, like bags or get away car. The argument in
the rational theory is that every crime is premeditated and predetermined, which is evident to a
rational decision making. The offender usually selects his victim, the place and location where the
crime will be conducted, and the time to do so (Neyhouse, 2002).

Critics of the rational choice theory argue that it is the determined nature of the moral sentiment that
that determines the range of moral choices. Thus, hey argue that it is more advantageous for the
criminal justice system to base their ruling on the positivism concept. The rational choice theory fails
to put into consideration other causes of criminal activities, especially, as related to the social well-
being of the perpetrator. There are other conditions, like deprivation, broken families, poor living
conditions and underprivileged childhood that can cause a person to turn into a criminal
(Hartung Blustein, 2002).

Conclusion
The two concepts have a positive impact upon criminology to a certain extent. The negative aspects
of one of the concept can be solved by applying the other. Law enforcement and the judiciary system
should find a way to strike the balance between the two concepts. They should strive to find a way of
coming up with a system that will borrow the positive aspects of each of the two concepts. This will
provide a system that will be very strong in handling crime.

Introduction

Rational choice theory and its assumptions about human behavior have been integrated into numerous criminological
theories and criminal justice interventions. Rational choice theory originated during the late 18th century with the work
of Cesare Beccaria. Since then, the theory has been expanded upon and extended to include other perspectives,
such as deterrence, situational crime prevention, and routine activity theory. The rational choice perspective has been
applied to a wide range of crimes, including robbery, drug use, vandalism, and white-collar crime. In addition,
neuropsychological literature shows that there are neurobiological mechanisms involved in our “rational choices.”

General Overviews

Cornish and Clarke 1986 includes numerous theoretical and empirical essays that describe the process of criminal
decision making. Piquero and Tibbetts 2002 includes scholarly chapters that address a number of issues relating to
rational choice theory, such as the methodological issues associated with rational choice and the integration of
rational choice theory into other theories (such as feminist theory). This book also contains chapters that describe
how rational choice can be applied to a number of criminal behaviors, such as organized crime, corporate crime, and
violent behavior. Clarke and Felson 1993 includes a series of essays that apply rational choice to different types of
crimes, and that discuss the integration of rational choice with other theories. In addition, this volume includes essays
that discuss how opportunity structures and rational choice come together to create a criminal offense. Ariely
2008 discusses how human decision-making processes are more irrational than rational.
Adam Smith--who proposed the idea of an "invisible hand" moving markets in the mid-1770's--
usually gets credit as the father of rational choice theory, according to the Hartford Institute
for Religion Research.