Abstract
An argument is advanced to show why E-admissibility should be preferred over maximality as a principle of rational choice where rationality is understood as minimal rationality. Consideration is given to the distinction between second best and second worst options in three way choice that is ignored according to maximality. It is shown why the behavior exhibited in addressing the problems posed by Allais (Econometrica 21:503–546, 1952) and by Ellsberg (Q Econ 75:643–669, 1961) do not violate the independence postulate according to minimal rationality.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allais M (1952) Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risque: Critique des postulats et axioms de l’école americaine. Econometrica 21:503–546
Ellsberg D (1961) Risk, ambiguity and the savage axioms. Q Econ 75:643–669
Herzberger H (1973) Ordinal preference and rational choice. Econometrica, 41:187–237
Levi I (1974) On indeterminate probabilities. J Philos 71:391–418
Levi I (1986) Hard choices. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1944) Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Schervish MJ, Seidenfeld T, Kadane JB, Levi I (2003) Extensions of expected utility theory and some limitations pairwise comparisons. ISIPTA’03. In: Proceedings of the third international symposium on imprecise probabilities and their applications, Lugano CH, 14–17 July. Carleton Scientific, Canada, pp 494–508
Sen AK (1970) Collective choice and social welfare. Holden-Day, London
Walley P (1991) Statistical reasoning with imprecise probabilities. Chapman and Hall, London
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Levi, I. Symposium on “Cognition and Rationality: Part I” Minimal rationality. Mind & Society 5, 199–211 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-006-0017-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-006-0017-z