punishment are not available within the same issue-area. Can a rational choice theory be developed to explain compliance with these agreements, as such theories have been developed to explain compliance with agreements enforced largely through reciprocity? Conclusion This paper is both a tribute to rational-choice theory and a warning. Both tribute and warning can be expressed by discussing the"outrageous ambition"of many rational choice theorists. These theorists seek to explain an extraordinary range of behavior within a single encompassing framework. In an earlier version of this paper I referred to this ambition as the""sin of hubris. Hubris, or pride, was the fatal flaw of the hero Greek tragedy. It is also the flaw of many technically highly-competent analysts, who believe that their command of mathematically difficult techniques provides them with a unique key to the nature of social reality, and who forget that rational-choice techniques are better at generating hypotheses than providing answers. I cited a warning from the Greek historian Heroditus, which I found in a quotation from the notebooks of my father, who taught for over a decade in the College of the University of Chicago: To extinguish hubris is more needful than to extinguish fire. In response, John Ferejohn commented that"those tragic heroes like Oedipus were HEROES and their hubris was an essential part of their heroic character. They were not deceived in thinking that they had nearly godlike capabilities (unlike most people)but they tragically overestimated these capabilities. So while hubris is a sin in one sense, it is admirable. even awesome. in another sense It seems to me that Ferejohn is right. Hubris is both a blessing and a curse Aware of the superiority of their minds, and the power of their analytical tools, rational choice theorists specify new, or at least more precise, causal mechanisms that propose often- ingenious solutions to important puzzles. The study of international law and institutions is better for such creative engagement. Yet hubris can lead to arrogance and error, when it prompts analysts to assert findings when they only have hypotheses, or induces them to ignore historical context overlook the role of values. or dismiss ariations in preferences as unimportant. Perhaps hubris should not be extinguished, but only subjected to prudent restraints. At the very least, we should not forget Shakespeares warning on the subject Man, proud man Drest in a little brief authority Most ignorant of what he's most assur'd, His glassy essence, like an angry ape 35 I am borrowing the phrase, "outrageous ambition, "from the late Terry Sanford, Governor and Senator from North Carolina and President of Duke University between 1970 and 1985. He used it to describ Duke's attempts, constrained by finances and its short history, nevertheless to achieve excellence. Comments sent to the author, 12 January 2002 3Measure for Measure2: 212 punishment are not available within the same issue-area. Can a rational￾choice theory be developed to explain compliance with these agreements, as such theories have been developed to explain compliance with agreements enforced largely through reciprocity? Conclusion This paper is both a tribute to rational-choice theory and a warning. Both tribute and warning can be expressed by discussing the “outrageous ambition” of many rational￾choice theorists.35 These theorists seek to explain an extraordinary range of behavior within a single encompassing framework. In an earlier version of this paper I referred to this ambition as the “sin of hubris.” Hubris, or pride, was the fatal flaw of the hero in Greek tragedy. It is also the flaw of many technically highly-competent analysts, who believe that their command of mathematically difficult techniques provides them with a unique key to the nature of social reality, and who forget that rational-choice techniques are better at generating hypotheses than providing answers. I cited a warning from the Greek historian Heroditus, which I found in a quotation from the notebooks of my father, who taught for over a decade in the College of the University of Chicago: “To extinguish hubris is more needful than to extinguish fire.” In response, John Ferejohn commented that “those tragic heroes like Oedipus were HEROES and their hubris was an essential part of their heroic character. They were not deceived in thinking that they had nearly godlike capabilities (unlike most people) but they tragically overestimated these capabilities. So while hubris is a sin in one sense, it is admirable, even awesome, in another sense.” 36 It seems to me that Ferejohn is right. Hubris is both a blessing and a curse. Aware of the superiority of their minds, and the power of their analytical tools, rational￾choice theorists specify new, or at least more precise, causal mechanisms that propose often-ingenious solutions to important puzzles. The study of international law and institutions is better for such creative engagement. Yet hubris can lead to arrogance and error, when it prompts analysts to assert findings when they only have hypotheses, or induces them to ignore historical context, overlook the role of values, or dismiss variations in preferences as unimportant. Perhaps hubris should not be extinguished, but only subjected to prudent restraints. At the very least, we should not forget Shakespeare’s warning on the subject: 37 Man, proud man, Drest in a little brief authority, Most ignorant of what he’s most assur’d, His glassy essence, like an angry ape, 35 I am borrowing the phrase, “outrageous ambition,” from the late Terry Sanford, Governor and Senator from North Carolina and President of Duke University between 1970 and 1985. He used it to describe Duke’s attempts, constrained by finances and its short history, nevertheless to achieve excellence. 36 Comments sent to the author, 12 January 2002. 37Measure for Measure 2:2