Abstract
Game theory probably offers the most well-known account of how rational agents interact in strategic situations. The rational thought processes that are involved, while enormously sophisticated, remain very private for each agent. Less well known is the alternative account that is offered by law and legal theory, an account where agents interact, and understand their interaction, under the idea of public (or objective) reasonableness. This Article argues, using some simple examples, that the legal account does better than the game theoretic account in explaining the actual levels of cooperation and coordination we observe across rational individuals in strategic situations.
Recommended Citation
Bruce Chapman,
Rational Choice and Reasonable Interactions,
81
Chi.-Kent L. Rev.
75
(2006).
Available at:
https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol81/iss1/6
