IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/pophec/v21y2022i1p3-28.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rational intransitive preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Baumann

Abstract

According to a widely held view, rationality demands that the preferences of a person be transitive. The transitivity assumption is an axiom in standard theories of rational choice. It is also prima facie very plausible. I argue here that transitivity is not a necessary condition of rationality; it is a constraint only in some cases. The argument presented here is based on the non-linearity of differential utility functions. This paper has four parts. First, I present an argument against the transitivity assumption (I, II). Second, I discuss some objections; this will also bring out some features of the view defended here, like the essentially comparative nature of choice (III). Then, I discuss certain proposals that promise to avoid my conclusion (IV). Finally, I go into some implications concerning the nature of rational decision making (V). To accept some intransitivities as rational does not make our life easier; it can even lead to hard choices. However, it does not lead to skepticism about rational choice.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Baumann, 2022. "Rational intransitive preferences," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 21(1), pages 3-28, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:pophec:v:21:y:2022:i:1:p:3-28
    DOI: 10.1177/1470594X211072271
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1470594X211072271
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1470594X211072271?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fishburn, Peter C, 1991. "Nontransitive Preferences in Decision Theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 113-134, April.
    2. Fishburn, P. C., 1984. "Dominance in SSB utility theory," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 130-148, October.
    3. Qizilbash, Mozaffar, 2005. "Transitivity And Vagueness," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(1), pages 109-131, April.
    4. Jacob Barrett, 2019. "Interpersonal comparisons with preferences and desires," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 18(3), pages 219-241, August.
    5. Shlomo Naeh & Uzi Segal, 2008. "The Talmud On Transitivity," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 687, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 04 Sep 2009.
    6. Gordon Tullock, 1964. "The Irrationality Of Intransitivity," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(3), pages 401-406.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Braun, Marlon & Shukla, Pradyumn, 2024. "On cone-based decompositions of proper Pareto-optimality in multi-objective optimization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 317(2), pages 592-602.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mongin, P., 1998. "Does Optimization Imply Rationality?," Papers 9817, Paris X - Nanterre, U.F.R. de Sc. Ec. Gest. Maths Infor..
    2. Ismail, M.S., 2014. "The equivalence between two-person symmetric games and decision problems," Research Memorandum 023, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:6:p:1044-1051 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Petri, Henrik & Voorneveld, Mark, 2016. "Characterizing lexicographic preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 54-61.
    5. Felix Brandt & Patrick Lederer & Warut Suksompong, 2022. "Incentives in Social Decision Schemes with Pairwise Comparison Preferences," Papers 2204.12436, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2024.
    6. Ehrgott, Matthias & Wang, Judith Y.T. & Watling, David P., 2015. "On multi-objective stochastic user equilibrium," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 81(P3), pages 704-717.
    7. Wilfried Youmbi, 2024. "Nonparametric Analysis of Random Utility Models Robust to Nontransitive Preferences," Papers 2406.13969, arXiv.org.
    8. A. Y. Klimenko, 2015. "Intransitivity in Theory and in the Real World," Papers 1507.03169, arXiv.org.
    9. M. Ali Khan & Metin Uyanık, 2021. "Topological connectedness and behavioral assumptions on preferences: a two-way relationship," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 71(2), pages 411-460, March.
    10. Louis Lévy-Garboua, 1999. "Expected Utility and Cognitive Consistency," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-03674666, HAL.
    11. Michele Lombardi, 2008. "Uncovered set choice rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(2), pages 271-279, August.
    12. Raghu Suryanarayanan, 2006. "A Model of Anticipated Regret and Endogenous Beliefs," CSEF Working Papers 161, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy, revised 01 Dec 2008.
    13. Walter Bossert & Kotaro Suzumura, 2015. "Expected utility without full transitivity," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(4), pages 707-722, December.
    14. Robin M. Hogarth & Natalia Karelaia, 2005. "Simple Models for Multiattribute Choice with Many Alternatives: When It Does and Does Not Pay to Face Trade-offs with Binary Attributes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(12), pages 1860-1872, December.
    15. Heller, Yuval, 2012. "Justifiable choice," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 375-390.
    16. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Gutierrez, Roman J., 2007. "Testing for intransitivity of preferences predicted by a lexicographic semi-order," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 96-112, September.
    17. Aziz, Haris & Brandl, Florian & Brandt, Felix, 2015. "Universal Pareto dominance and welfare for plausible utility functions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 123-133.
    18. Michael Birnbaum & Ulrich Schmidt, 2008. "An experimental investigation of violations of transitivity in choice under uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 77-91, August.
    19. Han Bleichrodt & Ulrich Schmidt, 2002. "A Context-Dependent Model of the Gambling Effect," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(6), pages 802-812, June.
    20. Bouchra Benyelles & Eser Arisoy, 2018. "Implication of Regret on Mutual Funds Managers Risk-Shifting Decision," Post-Print hal-02283886, HAL.
    21. Alcantud, J. C. R., 2002. "Non-binary choice in a non-deterministic model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 117-123, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:pophec:v:21:y:2022:i:1:p:3-28. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.