Individual autonomy in evolutionary game theory: defending Sugden against Ross’s accusation of eliminativism

In this paper, I provide a defence of Robert Sugden’s contribution to evolutionary game theory against Donald Ross’s accusation of eliminating the individual’s autonomy by denying the explanatory role of rationality, utility maximization and rational beliefs. In this regard, I claim that Sugden’s methodological remarks on evolutionary game theory do not imply a characterization of real agents as automata. On the methodological level, Sugden claims that it is not correct to conceive the empirical phenomenon of social evolution in terms of normative concepts, whose empirical status is not obvious. However, Sugden proposes a theory that explains the agent’s behaviour in terms of inductive reasoning, adaptive beliefs, salience and pattern recognition. The latter are psychological features that describe the way agents manage to self-determine their own actions. From these clarifications, I draw the conclusion that Ross’s critique misunderstands Sugden’s contribution both on the methodological and empirical level.