Abstract

One argument put forward by rational action theorists is that rational explanation is logically superior to its alternatives: rational action is a complete explanation and is more easily understood. We will argue that this argument is invalid. Either rational action is just another mode of action, or its logic of explanation brings together a logic of (rational) action with an exogenous set (of preferences), a scheme like other modes of action. The alleged advantage of being a more comprehensible explanation is a commonsense claim, but at that level other logics of action are just as comprehensible. Rational choice may be valid and useful, but the argument of its logical superiority is untenable. © 2025 Universidad de Chile, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales. All rights reserved.