Talk:Reasonable person

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  • Reasonable man - nonsense. Vancouverguy 18:25, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    (Ref: [1])
    • Blatant nonsense. Delete. Kosebamse 18:39, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Original contributor now replaced it with a long text that looks copyrighted, as it is apparently from a scientific journal. (Notably, the text included the source that it was copied from). Kosebamse 19:48, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      (Ref: [2])

Note from copyright holder: Re:http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/reasble.html

Copyright http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/index.html Except for the Darwin lecture on Time and Religion, you are welcome to download a single copy of anything on this site for your own personal use, and to make further copies for teaching purposes that are not profit-making. If you want to include an article of mine in an anthology, you should ask my permission, which will be granted on the following terms: . TWO copies to be given me (one for me, one for Merton Library).

. A royalty on each copy sold, calculated thus: (recommended retail price divided by 10) times (number of pages of my contribution divided by total number of pages).

[For short runs---under 1,000---I am prepared to waive the payment as being negligible. But a few of my articles have been much reprinted, and I think it is only fair that I should have some share in the proceeds.]

The material might be badly written, but the topic is not nonsense, of course. "Reasonable" and "reasonable man" have specific meaning in law, and this technical meaning belongs in an encyclopedia. Mkmcconn 20:30, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

  • If that is so, write something about the subject and we will kiss your feet ;-) Kosebamse 20:09, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Perhaps, though, if that article is written, someone is bound to come along sooner or later and claim that it belongs at reasonable person. -- IHCOYC 20:55, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's a beautiful stub, now. Evercat 00:00, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Can someone expand on any exceptions or modifications for mental or physical disabilities of someone under trial verses the reasonable man standard? Either in the article or on this talk page?

'Reasonable person' is a fairly common concept in law, and it is god to have a page on it. The page should probably be expanded, however, and I think there should be more criticism of the concept. - Matthew238 23:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bonus pater

I'm used to a similar concept called "bonus pater". I see the French Wikipedia has an article: fr:Bon père de famille. Is this latinism not used in English? Haukur 16:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Standard by Which All Else is Measured

I assume that the primary reason for including the reasonable man is that, if we all don't live up to the standard of the reasonable man, then we are being unreasonable. Hence, it makes sense that the reasonable man would have some scientific attributes (I won't go into saying things like eye colour, etc... but IQ would seem to be an important trait of the reasonable man, together with religious and ethical codes/morals, etc... - which opens up a whole can of worms). Thus, the following quote from Power (sociology) seems applicable here :

"The unmarked category can form the identifying mark of the powerful. The unmarked category becomes the standard against which to measure everything else. For most Western readers, it is posited that if a protagonist's race is not indicated, it will be assumed by the reader that the protagonist is Caucasian; if a sexual identity is not indicated, it will be assumed by the reader that the protagonist is heterosexual; "

The point is that you would ideally definie some kind of scientific "average" for the reasonable man and then apply it.

CountNihilismus 01:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)