You may be familiar with the Reasonable Person Standard; the legal theory that one's actions ought to be judged by what a reasonable person would do in the same or similar situations. On its face, it is easy to imagine what a normal, rational person with standard physical attributes and mental capacities would do; like me, your mind probably drifts to someone similar to yourself. Legally we craft the absolutely most average, run-of-the-mill, public educated, normal individual possible. In some cases we go further to apply the average person of similar wealth, education, and/or background. Juries around the United States are asked to apply this standard to determining whether individuals intentionally or negligently inflict harm on others, enter into contracts, violate laws, or fail to uphold various civil duties. If this theory, or standard, is applicable in situations where legally reparable harm may arise, why then could we not apply this standard to our own actions? Why not apply this standard to our friends? Coworkers? Employers? Celebrities? Professional Athletes? Civil Servants? Public Officials? Hopefully you can see where this is going. What does our world look like to the Reasonable Person? If the Reasonable Person were to move from the courtroom to our homes, businesses, or social havens, what would they think? Objectively considering human action and interaction from such a fictitious vantage point may help one to find reason in the unreasonable.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Posts
