Rationality, Rules and Institutions
A.Y. 2024/2025
Learning objectives
The course aims at
- introducing students to the fundamental principles of rational choice theory for the analysis of institutions;
- providing knowledge of the main issues discussed in contemporary philosophy of the social sciences, with particular emphasis on social ontology
- introducing students to the fundamental principles of rational choice theory for the analysis of institutions;
- providing knowledge of the main issues discussed in contemporary philosophy of the social sciences, with particular emphasis on social ontology
Expected learning outcomes
At the end of the course the students will have acquired
- some basic skills in the formation and use of scientific concepts and theories;
- the capacity to understand the theories that philosophers, psychologists, biologists and economists have put forward to explain the emergence of institutions;
- knowledge of the cognitive skills that allow human beings to engage in coordination and cooperation, on a scale of complexity that is unknown in the natural world;
- the ability to analyse and critically assess the main arguments brought in favour and against different views concerning the nature and functions of institutions, and the emergence of cooperation;
- the capacity to identify the ways in which these debates may be resolved, and how their solutions may contribute to scientific progress and understanding;
- the capacity to present the main arguments independently, satisfying the main requirements of scholarly writing.
- some basic skills in the formation and use of scientific concepts and theories;
- the capacity to understand the theories that philosophers, psychologists, biologists and economists have put forward to explain the emergence of institutions;
- knowledge of the cognitive skills that allow human beings to engage in coordination and cooperation, on a scale of complexity that is unknown in the natural world;
- the ability to analyse and critically assess the main arguments brought in favour and against different views concerning the nature and functions of institutions, and the emergence of cooperation;
- the capacity to identify the ways in which these debates may be resolved, and how their solutions may contribute to scientific progress and understanding;
- the capacity to present the main arguments independently, satisfying the main requirements of scholarly writing.
Lesson period: Second trimester
Assessment methods: Esame
Assessment result: voto verbalizzato in trentesimi
Single course
This course can be attended as a single course.
Course syllabus and organization
Single session
Responsible
Lesson period
Second trimester
Course syllabus
- Individualism and rational choice theory
- Conventions and coordination problems
- The problem of cooperation
- The evolution of cooperation
- Social norms
- Collective intentionality
- Constitutive rules theory
- Conventions and coordination problems
- The problem of cooperation
- The evolution of cooperation
- Social norms
- Collective intentionality
- Constitutive rules theory
Prerequisites for admission
English language, level B2.
Teaching methods
Lectures, group work, seminar discussions
Teaching Resources
The complete and final list of material can be found on the Ariel website of the course. Among the main texts:
* Weber, M. (1921) "The Interpretive Understanding of Social Action", in Readings in the Philosophy of the Social Sciences, edited by M. Brodbeck. Macmillan, pp. 19-33.
* Guala, F. (2016) Understanding Institutions, Princeton University Press, Ch. 2 ("Games")
* Lewis, D. (1969) Convention. Blackwell, selected paragraphs from Chs. 1 and 2.
* Peterson, M. (ed. 2015) The Prisoner's Dilemma. Cambridge University Press (Introduction).
* Handout on Repeated Games
* Camerer, C. F., & Fehr, E. (2004) "Measuring social norms and preferences using experimental games: A guide for social scientists", in J. Henrich et al (eds.) Foundations of Human Sociality, Oxford University Press.
* Frank, R. H. (1988) Passions within Reason, Norton (Ch.3: "A Theory of Moral Sentiments")
* Alexander, J. M. (2019) "Evolutionary Game Theory", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/game-evolutionary/ [online], especially sections 1,2,3,5.
* Okasha, S., (2013) "Biological Altruism", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philoso-phy https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/altruism-biological/
* Bicchieri, C. (2006) The Grammar of Society, Cambridge University Press, Ch. 1 ("The rules we live by"). [S&G, ariel]
* Gilbert, M. (1990) "Walking Together: A Paradigmatic Social Phenomenon", Midwest Studies in Philosophy 15: pp. 1-14.
* Searle, J. (2005) "What Is an Institution?", Journal of Institutional Economics 1: 1-22
* Guala, F. and Hindriks, F. (2015) "A Unified Social Ontology", Philosophical Quarterly 165 (2015): 177-201.
* Weber, M. (1921) "The Interpretive Understanding of Social Action", in Readings in the Philosophy of the Social Sciences, edited by M. Brodbeck. Macmillan, pp. 19-33.
* Guala, F. (2016) Understanding Institutions, Princeton University Press, Ch. 2 ("Games")
* Lewis, D. (1969) Convention. Blackwell, selected paragraphs from Chs. 1 and 2.
* Peterson, M. (ed. 2015) The Prisoner's Dilemma. Cambridge University Press (Introduction).
* Handout on Repeated Games
* Camerer, C. F., & Fehr, E. (2004) "Measuring social norms and preferences using experimental games: A guide for social scientists", in J. Henrich et al (eds.) Foundations of Human Sociality, Oxford University Press.
* Frank, R. H. (1988) Passions within Reason, Norton (Ch.3: "A Theory of Moral Sentiments")
* Alexander, J. M. (2019) "Evolutionary Game Theory", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/game-evolutionary/ [online], especially sections 1,2,3,5.
* Okasha, S., (2013) "Biological Altruism", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philoso-phy https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/altruism-biological/
* Bicchieri, C. (2006) The Grammar of Society, Cambridge University Press, Ch. 1 ("The rules we live by"). [S&G, ariel]
* Gilbert, M. (1990) "Walking Together: A Paradigmatic Social Phenomenon", Midwest Studies in Philosophy 15: pp. 1-14.
* Searle, J. (2005) "What Is an Institution?", Journal of Institutional Economics 1: 1-22
* Guala, F. and Hindriks, F. (2015) "A Unified Social Ontology", Philosophical Quarterly 165 (2015): 177-201.
Assessment methods and Criteria
Written exam in class.
The exam will assess students' knowledge of the main theories of institutions in philosophy and social xcience. It will also assess students' capacity to illustrate critically and independently their conceptual and empirical limitations.
Criteria of assessment:
- First Class (28-30 cum laude)
Work shows that the student has clearly achieved the objectives of the course. Topic addressed clearly, concisely and with precision. Knowledge of the relevant literature is broad and deep, covering both essential and additional material indicated in the syllabus. The answer goes well beyond the paraphrasing of other authors' ideas. Analysis of concepts, arguments and positions is rigorous and sufficiently thorough. Arguments are given where appropriate, are cogent and properly supported by evidence and reasons.
- Upper Second Class (25-27)
Work shows that the student has worked diligently, has consulted and understood the essential literature, has answered the question directly. The essay or answer is well organised, important concepts and positions presented clearly and analysed sufficiently. Arguments are cogent and properly supported by evidence and reasons. Some attempt at critical reflection, for example ability to compare different viewpoints.
- Lower Second Class (22-24)
Work shows that the student has clearly learnt during the course. Concepts and problems adequately formulated and understood, but not necessarily with great clarity or depth. The essential literature has been consulted and understood to a large degree. Important concepts and positions presented. Fails to meet the criteria for 25+ because of inadequate organisation, some errors of understanding, lack of analysis and critical reflection, or failure to support arguments with evidence and/or reasons.
- Third Class (18-21)
Shows that the student has learnt something about the subject. Some familiarity with the relevant literature but poor grasp of essential concepts. Few references to sources, some errors of fact and interpretation. The question is usually not directly answered, and the answer usually lacks structure and organisation. Claims not supported by evidence and/or arguments.
- Fail (0-17)
No evidence of having benefited from the course, and/or little knowledge of the subject. Very poor understanding or complete misunderstanding of the relevant issues, concepts, and positions. Very limited evidence of reading. Usually contains many serious errors of fact and interpretation and/or fails to address the question. The answer lacks structure, is often confused, and/or the terminology is used inappropriately and imprecisely.
The exam will assess students' knowledge of the main theories of institutions in philosophy and social xcience. It will also assess students' capacity to illustrate critically and independently their conceptual and empirical limitations.
Criteria of assessment:
- First Class (28-30 cum laude)
Work shows that the student has clearly achieved the objectives of the course. Topic addressed clearly, concisely and with precision. Knowledge of the relevant literature is broad and deep, covering both essential and additional material indicated in the syllabus. The answer goes well beyond the paraphrasing of other authors' ideas. Analysis of concepts, arguments and positions is rigorous and sufficiently thorough. Arguments are given where appropriate, are cogent and properly supported by evidence and reasons.
- Upper Second Class (25-27)
Work shows that the student has worked diligently, has consulted and understood the essential literature, has answered the question directly. The essay or answer is well organised, important concepts and positions presented clearly and analysed sufficiently. Arguments are cogent and properly supported by evidence and reasons. Some attempt at critical reflection, for example ability to compare different viewpoints.
- Lower Second Class (22-24)
Work shows that the student has clearly learnt during the course. Concepts and problems adequately formulated and understood, but not necessarily with great clarity or depth. The essential literature has been consulted and understood to a large degree. Important concepts and positions presented. Fails to meet the criteria for 25+ because of inadequate organisation, some errors of understanding, lack of analysis and critical reflection, or failure to support arguments with evidence and/or reasons.
- Third Class (18-21)
Shows that the student has learnt something about the subject. Some familiarity with the relevant literature but poor grasp of essential concepts. Few references to sources, some errors of fact and interpretation. The question is usually not directly answered, and the answer usually lacks structure and organisation. Claims not supported by evidence and/or arguments.
- Fail (0-17)
No evidence of having benefited from the course, and/or little knowledge of the subject. Very poor understanding or complete misunderstanding of the relevant issues, concepts, and positions. Very limited evidence of reading. Usually contains many serious errors of fact and interpretation and/or fails to address the question. The answer lacks structure, is often confused, and/or the terminology is used inappropriately and imprecisely.
SECS-P/01 - ECONOMICS - University credits: 9
Lessons: 60 hours
Professor:
Guala Francesco
Shifts:
Turno
Professor:
Guala FrancescoProfessor(s)
Reception:
Tuesday 9.30-12.30, by appointment
Department of Philosophy, via Festa del Perdono 7, Cortile Ghiacciaia, top floor