SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ekonomi ve Finansal Araştırmalar Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1

Bounded Autonomy: A Kantian-Evolutionary Approach to Rational Choice Theory

Sınırlı Özerklik: Rasyonel Seçimin Kantçı ve Evrimsel Temelleri Üzerine Bir İnceleme

Aras Yolusever(İSTANBUL KÜLTÜR ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-9810-2571
Pages
28–50
Publication Date
2026-06-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The model challenges both neoclassical and behavioral assumptions by demonstrating that moral norms can evolve and persist as equilibria, offering a new philosophical foundation for microeconomics grounded in moral evolution and strategic adaptation.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study synthesizes Kantian moral philosophy, Evolutionary Game Theory (EGT), and microeconomic rational choice to redefine rationality as a dynamic balance between duty and adaptation.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Using a two-strategy evolutionary model, agents choose between Kantian (duty-based) and utilitarian (instrumental) behavior.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The model challenges both neoclassical and behavioral assumptions by demonstrating that moral norms can evolve and persist as equilibria, offering a new philosophical foundation for microeconomics grounded in moral evolution and strategic adaptation.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Evrimsel Oyun Teorisi · Davranışsal İktisat · Sınırlı Özerklik

Abstract

This study synthesizes Kantian moral philosophy, Evolutionary Game Theory (EGT), and microeconomic rational choice to redefine rationality as a dynamic balance between duty and adaptation. While classical economics assumes utility-maximizing agents and Kantian ethics posits autonomous moral actors, EGT views rationality as an emergent property shaped by evolutionary pressures. The paper introduces bounded autonomy, a condition where agents act under both moral principles and adaptive incentives. Using a two-strategy evolutionary model, agents choose between Kantian (duty-based) and utilitarian (instrumental) behavior. Replicator dynamics show that moral strategies remain evolutionarily stable when long-term cooperative gains exceed short-term temptations. Thus, autonomy emerges not as absolute freedom but as contextually constrained stability. The model challenges both neoclassical and behavioral assumptions by demonstrating that moral norms can evolve and persist as equilibria, offering a new philosophical foundation for microeconomics grounded in moral evolution and strategic adaptation.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Kantçı ahlak felsefesi, evrimsel oyun teorisi ve mikro iktisadi rasyonel seçim kuramını birleştirerek rasyonaliteyi görev ile uyum arasındaki dinamik bir denge olarak yeniden tanımlamaktadır. Neoklasik iktisat fayda maksimizasyonunu, Kant etiği ise özerk ahlaki eylemi varsayarken, evrimsel oyun teorisi rasyonalitenin evrimsel baskılar altında ortaya çıkan bir özellik olduğunu öne sürmektedir. Makalede sınırlı özerklik kavramı geliştirilmiştir. Bireyler hem ahlaki ilkeler hem de uyarlanabilir güdüler altında hareket etmektedir. İki stratejili bir evrimsel modelde, ajanlar Kantçı (görev temelli) veya faydacı (araçsal) davranışı seçmektedir. Çoğaltan dinamikler, uzun vadeli iş birliği kazançları kısa vadeli cazibeleri aştığında ahlaki stratejilerin evrimsel olarak kararlı kaldığını göstermektedir. Böylece özerklik mutlak değil, bağlamsal bir denge haline gelmektedir. Model, ahlaki normların evrimsel olarak kalıcılığını vurgulayarak mikro ekonomiye ahlaki bir temel kazandırmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yolusever, A. (2026). Bounded Autonomy: A Kantian-Evolutionary Approach to Rational Choice Theory. Ekonomi ve Finansal Araştırmalar Dergisi, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1, 28–50. https://doi.org/10.56668/jefr.1821089

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (37)

  1. Akerlof, G.A. and Shiller, R.J. (2009). Animal spirits: How human psychology drives the economy and why it matters for global capitalism. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  2. Arrow, K.J. (1972). Gifts and exchanges. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1(4): 343–362.
  3. Arrow, K.J. (1974). The limits of organization. New York: W. W. Norton.
  4. Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
  5. Becker, G.S. (1976). The economic approach to human behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  6. Binmore, K. (2005). Natural justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  7. Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. (2011). A cooperative species: Human reciprocity and its evolution. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  8. Boyd, R. and Richerson, P.J. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  9. Coleman, J.S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  10. Fehr, E. and Fischbacher, U. (2002). Why social preferences matter: The impact of non-selfish motives on competition, cooperation, and incentives. The Economic Journal, 112(478): C1–C33.
  11. Fehr, E. and Gächter, S. (2000). Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. American Economic Review, 90(4): 980–994.
  12. Fehr, E. and Schmidt, K.M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3): 817–868.
  13. Gintis, H. (2009). The bounds of reason: Game theory and the unification of the behavioral sciences. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  14. Gintis, H., Bowles, S., Boyd, R. and Fehr, E. (2003). Explaining altruistic behavior in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24(3): 153–172.
  15. Greif, A. (2006). Institutions and the path to the modern economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  16. Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E. and Gintis, H. (2001). In search of Homo economicus: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. American Economic Review, 91(2): 73–78.
  17. Hodgson, G.M. (2004). The evolution of institutional economics: Agency, structure, and Darwinism in American institutionalism. Oxfordshire: Routledge.
  18. Hofbauer, J. and Sigmund, K. (1998). Evolutionary games and population dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  19. Hume, D. (2000). A treatise of human natüre. D.F. Norton and M.J. Norton (Eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2): 263–291.
  20. Kant, I. (1996). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals (Trans., M. Gregor). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  21. Korsgaard, C.M. (1996). The sources of normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  22. Kreps, D.M. (1990). Corporate culture and economic theory. In J. Alt and K. Shepsle (Eds.), Perspectives on positive political economy (pp. 90–143). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  23. Mas-Colell, A., Whinston, M.D. and Green, J.R. (1995). Microeconomic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Maynard Smith, J. (1982). Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  24. Milgrom, P.R., North, D.C. and Weingast, B.R. (1990). The role of institutions in the revival of trade: The law merchant, private judges, and the Champagne fairs. Economics and Politics, 2(1):1–23.
  25. North, D.C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  26. Nowak, M.A. (2006). Evolutionary dynamics: Exploring the equations of life. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  27. Nowak, M.A. and Sigmund, K. (2005). Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature, 437(7063): 1291–1298.
  28. Ostrom, E. (2000). Collective action and the evolution of social norms. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3): 137–158.
  29. Robbins, L. (1932). An essay on the nature and significance of economic science. New York: Macmillan.
  30. Sen, A. (1977). Rational fools: A critique of the behavioral foundations of economic theory. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 6(4): 317–344.
  31. Sen, A. (1987). On ethics and economics. New Jersey: Blackwell.
  32. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1): 99–118.
  33. Skyrms, B. (2004). The stag hunt and the evolution of social structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  34. Smith, A. (2002). The theory of moral sentiments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  35. Smith, A. (1981). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Indiana: Liberty Fund.
  36. Taylor, P.D. and Jonker, L. (1978). Evolutionarily stable strategies and game dynamics. Mathematical Biosciences, 40: 145–156.
  37. Weibull, J.W. (1995). Evolutionary game theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.