Reasonableness requires self-awareness and an appreciation for the common good. Its staggering how absent those qualities are in many people, and how these attributes evaporate in the face of strong emotion.
Regardless, the "Reasonable Person" is a staple in litigation, used as a benchmark for conduct where the specifics are too complicated or variable to consider individually.
There is a lot of cynicism on this thread, and while I do think it is often justified I think it also misses the point.
This is not (necessarily) statement about fundamental human nature. It is not a political platform. It is not a legal standard. It is not an architecture for a perfect society.
It is merely a personal choice. A strategy or protocol for working with other people. We simply evaluate it on the grounds of its effectiveness versus the alternatives. By effectiveness, I mean whether it enhances or reduces our ability to live peacefully and collaborate with others.
I have found that simply giving people the benefit of the doubt and resolving issues privately mostly works.
There's certainly questions about how to deal with social predators or the emotionally immature, but I think that the correct approach is to build off of this principle rather than to reject it.
CISG (Convention on Contracts for international sale of goods) Article 8/3 has a clause on the reasonable person in the same circumstances.
The article basically states if you can't establish what the other party thinks, and had no way of being aware, you can go on with your business.
In this case, the instruction is written to comp-sci students. I imagine most of them are technical and know how hard it is to try fixing computer-related problems of other people.
Rather, common good is an emergent property of personal gain. People are simply aware that the threads that hold society together benefit themselves the most.
Yep, in the US at least, I consider this a big flaw in the legal system, since "reasonable" people really don't exist in this country. The recent election is proof of this. We need a legal standard that doesn't rely on something that's fictional.
I'd say you just exemplified the problem. While you view the election as proof of unreasonableness of half the voters, I see your outright dismissal as a clear inability to see an opposing view and hence unreasonable.
Maybe he didn't dismiss them outright. Maybe he looked at things from their perspective first, analyzed their beliefs and arguments and concluded that they did not make their decision based on facts[1] and rationality.
[1]Unless you count "alternative facts" of course, in which case their viewpoint is just as valid as yours!
Regardless, the "Reasonable Person" is a staple in litigation, used as a benchmark for conduct where the specifics are too complicated or variable to consider individually.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person