Philippine Normal University

The National Center for Teacher Education

Mindanao
Multicultural Education Hub

Name: Khaira Racel Jay A. Pucot Date: July 2, 2018

Year & Section: BSSE-IV Score: _____________

PSSJ7 (Disciplinal Thinking in Social Science)

ACTIVITY 1
Developing Critical Thinking Skills in Social Science
“The Impact of Rationality on Human Action”

Direction: Read and answer the following questions carefully.

The Ultimatum Game

Player 1, the proposer splits a sum of P 10,000, specifying how much he will keep himself (P6,000)
and how much he will give to player 2 (P 4,000). If player 2 agrees, each party gets what player 1 decided.
If player 2 declines, then no one gets anything. What would you do, if you were player 2?

1. Should we assume that all humans are rational in their actions, i.e. that we would accept what
player 1 decides? If not, what role do independent concepts like equality and justice play in our
actions? How are we to gauge the unpredictability of human beings in our social scientific
explanations and to what degree is social knowledge de facto restricted and provisional because it
concerns human beings?

Answer:

Every human decision varies on different kind of situation. I can say that human nature is not
always rational because the decisions of human are guided by different factors and influenced by
expectations and perceptions of those around us.

Rational Choice theory assumes that all people try to actively maximize their advantage in any
situation and therefore consistently try to minimize their losses (Investopedia). Applying the theory, if I
would be player 2, I would agree so that I can get what have been decided than nothing to get. Based on
the situation with the application of theory, accepting the decision gives an advantage to them because
they will be having P 4,000 and thinking on the fairness, they will only loss P 1,000. Whereas, declining
decision gives nothing. Accepting what have been decided for me is rational because this provides benefits
and satisfaction to the individual despite of its injustice.

As what Gert argues on his Brute Rationality: Normativity and Human Action, there are two distinct
roles for such reasons: the justifying role, in which otherwise irrational actions can be rendered rationally
permissible, and the requiring role, in which otherwise irrational actions can be rendered rationally required.
Therefore, such injustice and irrational actions may also allow to be rational. But we individual must not
practice injustices, we must not just think about ourselves but also the people around us. We must balance
the benefits and perceived fairness of how rewards and costs are shared. Even if human nature is not
always rational but still we should act rationally. Tsar!