"Rational Choice"

January 23, 2009--Rational Choice Theory
So here we’ve been spending time talking about Rational Choice in a very philosophical and theoretical way. We’ve asked important questions like “Where do our preferences come from?” and “Why do people make the choices they do?” and “Where do social patterns and order come from?” We’ve also picked it apart and identified certain ontological assumptions underlying the theory and critiquing those assumptions; the most important one being that humans are rational actors and we seek to “maximize our preferences,” whatever that means. However, one of the biggest, most glaringly obvious critiques that we have missed, unfortunately, pertains to this very conundrum of knowing what qualifies as “maximization of preference.” In order to know if one of these rational actors is maximizing his or her preferences, you have to 1) know what he or she is giving up when the decision is made and 2) quantify the satisfaction that is gained by the objective choice and also the satisfaction that could’ve been gained by another choice that would’ve been objectified if the actual choice had been foregone; and this is the only way to know if the unchosen choice should’ve been made.
How could we have missed this? After all, a measurable approach to the theory could prove it correct. Don’t we want to know what is true? We probably ignore this critique because other people have taken it up for us. They are called Economists. They do calculus and run regressions and measure GDP. They know how to maximize not preferences, but profits. Sociology got it started, and economics is finishing it. However, they are the only ones who can because they study measurable things. They can measure income and profit margins and cost differentials. Everything in the economy; labor, capital, time, natural resources; can be reduced to a dollar sign. But relationship utility is simply not liquid. We can’t compare relationships of different types and qualities because they are simply too complex for the implementation of a common denominator.
This is still kinda hard for us to accept, though. We like to be able to explain exactly why something occurred, and predict what is going to happen if we choose a certain path. That’s why we compare relationships to bank accounts, and how we need to make deposits before we make withdrawals. It is why I’m using such a thick explanatory way of writing right now. It is probably also why we have such a propensity to trust ourselves with as important things as politics and the economy and family relations. If I have my own interests in mind and want to do what is best for me, then I am always going to make the best decision. I am going to do wise things with my money and time and let the most qualified person boss me around (politics) and choose the best person to marry.
But sometimes we choose wrong. Wrong choices are manifested by uncontrollable debt and divorce; things we often experience. Despite this theory that says we won’t let bad things happen to ourselves because we are self-interested, we have to remember that self-interest is not only a function of who we are, but also when we are. We all change over time. That which we decide to hold in the highest priority (some would say that our priorities define us) changes. Self-interest is not a singular concept. It holds plurality inasmuch as one decision heavily influences many different times of our individual selves.
A smarter way to choose than “self-interestedness” might be “being-interestedness.” That is, we should act in ways that will contribute to the preference of our “being:” our future self, those who are close to us, those things that are most important to us, and our respective spouse to whom we are sealed.
Now, then, I call into question the definitions of “atomism” and “individual.” As mentioned above, an individual is not simply his or her own self. The fact that we are speaking in terms of sociology right now proves that we all are social beings. And “social beings,” semantically, implies multiplicity.

Gift, Exchange, and Duty

Individual scriptural passages can be a rich, powerful source of knowledge and truth. When two or more passages are put together and we study them in context of one another, we learn even more. Sometimes, however, we must have understanding of other scripture in order to understand another. For example, D&C 130: 20-21 may be one of the most misunderstood passages of scripture we have today. It explains how every blessing we receive is predicated on our obedience to a corresponding commandment. This would be an example of an exchange-based relationship. We get something in return for our payment of obedience. Unfortunately, we often read this scripture to mean that our blessings are dependent on our obedience. Thus, in order to receive blessings, we must obey. Hence, our motivation for obedience becomes the blessings we receive after and contingently. Looking at our society today, this misunderstanding is quite understandable. Our legal system is based on crime and not cruel or unusual punishment. Our economy is run by an understanding of cost and benefit. We understand our world in terms of cause and effect, so why not apply that to things spiritual?

This misunderstanding can lead to frustrating questions, such as “Why do bad things happen to good people?” or “If I obey I’ll have trials. If I disobey, I’ll have trials. I may as well do what I want.” Well, this question gets cleared up when a person realizes the real motivation, the real reason, which God gives to us for the hard work and sacrifice associated with obedience. The scripture doesn’t say “If ye don’t want lung cancer, keep my commandments.” It doesn’t say “If ye don’t want to suffer, keep my commandments.” And it certainly doesn’t say “If ye want blessings, keep my commandments.” If we love God, then we will obey Him, and everything else will follow. This would more closely resemble a gift relationship.

Notwithstanding these elements of gift, are we able to give God a gift? A pure gift is, by definition, given out of the recipient’s interest and need. I have a hard time thinking that God needs something that we have, and our interactions with Him are "gifts." On the other hand, the value of a gift in based on the relationship between the giver and the recipient. The objective good or service is sentimental, not intrinsic; meaning that it would have a completely different value and take on a different meaning if given outside the relationship. But our relationship with God is completely different from any other relationship we have. So in trying to marginalize the tokens (whether gifts or exchanges) of our relationship with God, we’re stuck in a maze of semantics.

What might be closer to those tokens might be deals done out of duty. First of all, a major part of our relationship with God (also defined as ‘religion’) is following His appointed prophet. And multiple prophets have spoken of our duty to God. We even have an award by the same name, which if achieved accompanies an assumption of piety on the part of the recipient. President Monson, in near thematic habit, exhorts us to “Do [our] duty. It is best.”

Moreover, God ultimately does not tolerate imperfection. Gifts and exchange automatically assumes imperfection on the part of one or both of the players, hence the need for the transaction. Duty does not imply an owing tone. We do things because we’re supposed to; because God tells us to, and because we love Him. We don’t offer these tokens to God because we want something in return (exchange) or because we see a need that we can resolve (gift). With a sense of duty are we called to the work; not hired or invited.