09.07.2015 Views

Subjectivism and Economic Analysis: Essays in memory of Ludwig ...

Subjectivism and Economic Analysis: Essays in memory of Ludwig ...

Subjectivism and Economic Analysis: Essays in memory of Ludwig ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

MISES AND LACHMANN ON HUMAN ACTIONArguments similar to these can be readily extracted from Mises’swork. For example, Mises argues that we can only differentiate<strong>in</strong>tentional action from reactive behaviour if we assume that all<strong>in</strong>tentional action is rational:Praxeology does not employ the term rational. It deals withpurposive behaviour, i.e., human action. The opposite <strong>of</strong>action is not irrational behaviour, but a reactive response tostimuli on the part <strong>of</strong> the bodily organs <strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>in</strong>st<strong>in</strong>cts,which cannot be controlled by volition. If we were to assign adef<strong>in</strong>ite mean<strong>in</strong>g to the term rational as applied to behaviour,we could not f<strong>in</strong>d another mean<strong>in</strong>g than: the attitude <strong>of</strong> men<strong>in</strong>tent on br<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>g about effects.(Mises 1990:23)Consequently, it could be argued, from Mises’s position, that weare a priori committed to discern<strong>in</strong>g rationality <strong>in</strong> purposivebehaviour. In other words, the concept <strong>of</strong> rationality is ‘a priori’ <strong>in</strong>so far as it must be employed prior to identify<strong>in</strong>g anyth<strong>in</strong>g asaction. As action is assumed, a priori, to be rational, then a certa<strong>in</strong>‘pr<strong>in</strong>ciple <strong>of</strong> charity’ is <strong>in</strong> operation: we must assume that, fromthe perspective <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividual actors themselves, they are act<strong>in</strong>grationally:In speak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> human action, we have <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d conduct that, <strong>in</strong>the op<strong>in</strong>ion <strong>of</strong> the actor, is best fitted to atta<strong>in</strong> an end he wantsto atta<strong>in</strong>, whether or not his op<strong>in</strong>ion is also held by a better<strong>in</strong>formed spectator or historian.(Mises 1990:45)The problem Mises is address<strong>in</strong>g can be formulated thus: we do notfirst identify an action, <strong>and</strong> then work out whether or not it isrational. Rather, <strong>in</strong> identify<strong>in</strong>g anyth<strong>in</strong>g as a human action, wealready assume, or assume ‘a priori’, that this action is rational.Consequently, Mises is appeal<strong>in</strong>g to a much broader conception <strong>of</strong>rationality than that operat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> rational choice theories:<strong>Economic</strong>s does not deal with an imag<strong>in</strong>ary homo economicusas <strong>in</strong>eradicable fables reproach it with do<strong>in</strong>g, but with homoagens as he really is, <strong>of</strong>ten weak, stupid, <strong>in</strong>considerate, <strong>and</strong>badly <strong>in</strong>structed…. Its theorems are valid for all actions…. It isthe scope <strong>of</strong> history <strong>and</strong> not <strong>of</strong> praxeology to <strong>in</strong>vestigate what37

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!