Why use the term "rational" to modify choice? In other words, when a   
person uses the phrase "rational choice," what is she trying to tell the   
listener that she could not also tell him if she used the word "choice?"  
  
My more basic question is: when one uses the phrase "theory of rational   
choice," what goal does she have besides that which she would have if   
she used the phrase "theory of choice?"  
  
Perhaps a good answer is the former phrase tells the listener that the   
speaker is getting ready to tell him her opinion of what she means by   
"rational." This implies that she will tell what she regards as the   
difference between rational and irrational. If this is so, then "theory   
of rational choice" is very different from the "theory of choice," as I   
understand it. I am also confident that it is very different from what   
the vast majority of economists, along with the movers and shakers in   
the history of thought, have in mind when they do their business. For   
example, when these people say that economics assumes self interest,   
they do not mean that it assumes selfishness.  
  
Economics as a "theory of RATIONAL choice," by this definition, is more   
restrictive because it does not attempt to contemplate choice from the   
viewpoint of the individual whose behavior is being described. By this   
definition, economics is elitist. It aims to understand, describe, and   
predict behavior not from the viewpoint of the person behaving but from   
the viewpoint of the student of behavior.  
  
Economics as a theory of rational choice, by this definition, makes no   
necessary distinction between humans and animals, such as capuchin   
monkeys and Japanese macaques. But, of course, one does not have to be a   
rocket scientist to know that there is a difference. Human behavior has   
resulted in the complex trading systems, and in products that were   
beyond contemplation by the previous generation of humans, and certainly   
incomprehensible to the highest levels of animals.  
  
I agree with Alan that something metaphysical is at work here. Humanness   
is metaphysical. The human creates the blueprint for the machine that   
measures the activity of the mind. The machine cannot logically or   
chronologically measure the activity that created it.  
  
Pat Gunning