Abstract

Traditional accounts of rational choice theory assume that agents are always able to reach a single ranking of their preferences, even when several conflicting values are at stake. The article offers a review of some basic criticisms addressed to this assumption, arguing instead that agents often choose without having balanced their conflicting values and that choice does not correspond to a simple act of maximization of the expected utility. A crucial concept seems to be that of metapreferences, defined as second order preferences deriving from the human beings' self-reflective capability of evaluating and criticising their first order preferences. Such a notion, originally advanced by Frankfurt and Sen, has been further developed by other scholars as a promising step toward the formulation of a different and broader definition of rationality.