When Krista Lawlor told her teenage son to be home at a “reasonable hour,” he responded the way any self-respecting teenager with a philosophy professor for a parent might: He demanded a precise definition of “reasonable.” To him, Lawlor realized, the word was frustratingly vague, one whose meaning changed depending on perspective.
That slippery, elusive quality of reasonableness is the topic of Lawlor’s new book, Being Reasonable: The Case for a Misunderstood Virtue.
In a comprehensive exploration of what it means to be reasonable, Lawlor argues that being reasonable is about being able to reliably see what matters in the greater scheme of things. This trait helps us to understand other points of view, communicate what we care about, and respond thoughtfully to others, whether in setting curfews with teenagers, resolving disputes with neighbors, or handling conflicts with a partner.
Reasonableness is also foundational to Anglo-American law. Juries determine negligence through the “reasonable person standard,” in which they consider whether a person acted with the level of care and caution that a “reasonable” person would exercise under similar circumstances. But as Lawlor found across her research, legal theorists themselves worry about what the standard means.
Lawlor draws on dozens of cases to show the real-world stakes of using reasonableness as a standard for evaluating behavior, including Hattori v. Peairs, a case about the tragic 1992 killing of the 16-year-old Japanese exchange student Yoshihiro Hattori, who mistakenly approached the wrong home for a Halloween party. He was fatally shot by property owner Rodney Peairs, who said he perceived his life was in danger. A jury had to decide whether his response was reasonable, given the circumstances. Peairs was acquitted of manslaughter, though a subsequent civil trial found him liable.
“Matters of tremendous importance are being decided every day in courtrooms around the country on the basis of the reasonable person standard, but legal theorists seem to be saying, ‘we don’t really know what it means,’” Lawlor says.
A misunderstood virtue
Lawlor argues that reasonableness gets misunderstood, partly because of its malleability: “‘Reasonable’ is a highly context-sensitive word that elicits different criteria in different settings,” Lawlor explains. “What makes a request reasonable is different than what makes a doubt reasonable. So, it can seem that what counts as ‘reasonable’ is up to the speaker.”
And, because most people think they’re being reasonable, it can seem there’s no real way to adjudicate differences among people. “But we know from our own experience there are people who are flat out being unreasonable,” Lawlor says.
Take the case of Rudy Stanko, who in the mid-1990s was pulled over for driving 85 miles per hour on a curvy and steep two-lane highway in freezing conditions. At the time, Montana law had no explicit speed limit; instead, limits were based on what was “reasonable and prudent.” But as the officer who cited Stanko explained, had there been an obstruction on the frosty road, there would have been no way for Stanko to stop in time.
Stanko appealed the ticket, claiming the law was unclear. His case was ultimately heard by Montana’s Supreme Court, which, in a 4-3 ruling, determined the law “void for vagueness.” The court was thinking along the lines of Lawlor’s teenage son, finding the term “reasonable” provided no real guidance. And yet when Montana rewrote its traffic laws, it saw fit to continue including a demand for “reasonable care.”
Reasonable vs. rational
Lawlor sees “reasonable” as different from “rational.” Rationality implies a detached, value-neutral calculation, independent of fairness or relationships. Reasonableness recognizes that these commitments can profoundly shape how we think, act, and behave.
Lawlor encountered the distinction when she had her students enact the Prisoner’s Dilemma, a classic thought experiment in which two accomplices are arrested and interrogated in separate rooms. While mutual silence ensures a light sentence for each, there’s a deal on the table: if one person confesses, they get to walk free.
Game theorists posit that, rationally, it is in the prisoner’s self-interest to betray the other person. But to some of Lawlor’s students, mutual cooperation felt like the reasonable thing to do.
Shaping their decision was their ability to identify what mattered most in the situation, which Lawlor claims is the foundational trait on which reasonableness is based.
“A reasonable person acts in a way that promotes what is important,” Lawlor says, noting how being reasonable is fundamentally a matter of how well a person understands and responds to the values at stake in a situation.
Reasonable people disagree
Throughout the book, Lawlor identifies other common aspects of a reasonable person. For example, a reasonable person grounds their belief in evidence because they want to get the facts right.
But reasonable people can interpret the same facts in strikingly different ways, even when presented with the same evidence—as demonstrated in the Stanford course Democracy and Disagreement, which features experts on opposing sides discussing a political topic.
The explanation, as Lawlor sees it, is that what feels “reasonable” depends on one’s beliefs about what is valuable. And it’s often when we come into conflict with another that those beliefs get sharpened.
“We only truly understand what we value when our beliefs are tested and challenged by perspectives diverging from our own,” Lawlor says.
On this point, Lawlor draws on John Stuart Mill, who, in his classic 1859 book On Liberty, argues that we need others to challenge and criticize our views. It is by defending our beliefs about value that we ultimately come to understand ourselves better. “We all have to learn from each other, because no one of us has a big enough brain to understand it all,” Lawlor says.
In our polarized times, Lawlor says, reasonableness is a much-needed tool for productive discussion that supports and strengthens what is important to us.
Tips for being reasonable
According to Lawlor, reasonableness helps us live cooperatively.
“If we’re reasonable, we can harness the power of our emotions when we deliberate together about what matters,” she says.
Lawlor outlines certain qualities that reasonable people possess. They are curious, flexible, and open-minded. They acknowledge the limits of their own perspective and remain open to learning from others. Here are some tips to cultivate reasonableness:
- Notice and manage your emotions: Emotions can help you see what matters to you, but they can also prevent you from seeing what matters to others.
- Engage with those you disagree with: Engaging with others helps you understand what matters to you, and why. By listening to critical perspectives, you actually sharpen your reasoning and deepen your understanding of why you value what you do, not just what you reflexively believe.
- Critically evaluate your own position, not just that of the person you disagree with. Instead of thinking defensively—anticipating objections so you can counter them—look for the strongest fair objections to your own view. “What would another person reasonably object to in my position?”
This article was originally published on Stanford News. Read the original article.
Source: What Does It Mean to Be Reasonable?