Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reasonable Person Principle

cs.cmu.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 120 posts

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#101

Post by jdmichal »

dahart wrote: post #84
SapphireSun wrote: post #72

Something I'm slowly coming to realize is that unless you have a logically defensible moral position, it's hard to argue with people that disagree. Terms like reasonable are so flimsy it's hard to use it as a model to communicate with people that don't already agree with you. The successful operation of a principle like "reasonableness" requires an intake filter to suss out whether people joining the department rough…

> ... it's hard to argue with people that disagree. Terms like reasonable are so flimsy it's hard to use it as a model to communicate with people that don't already agree with you. You are absolutely right on both points, and I think it's important to recognize (as you did) how vague language can be. It can be astounding how much miscommunication and cross expectation can happen even after parties agree on really con…

If that is what the spirit is meant to be, I think that the principle of charity [0] is a stronger (less ambiguous) approach.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#102

Post by dwaltrip »

metaphorm wrote: post #39
switchbak wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That statement adds literally nothing to the conversation. Very much like your parent statement. If you're going to comment, can you at least try to inform or challenge me/others?

comment I responded to asked a question in the form of "A or B". I evaluated their question logically. what do you think I owe you in terms of "informing or challenging" you? at some point you'll have to actually interpret my comments yourself and figure out what I meant. how explicit do I need to be? we're talking about indicators that point to what has happened to American culture and society. A comment expressing…

An answer of "yes" to an A or B question is non-sensical and unproductive.

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#103

Post by metaphorm »

dwaltrip wrote: post #102
metaphorm wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

comment I responded to asked a question in the form of "A or B". I evaluated their question logically. what do you think I owe you in terms of "informing or challenging" you? at some point you'll have to actually interpret my comments yourself and figure out what I meant. how explicit do I need to be? we're talking about indicators that point to what has happened to American culture and society. A comment expressing…

An answer of "yes" to an A or B question is non-sensical and unproductive.

so what? a little non-sense is fun.

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#104

Post by grigjd3 »

I think a big part of the concept of a reasonable person is recognizing that others have something to offer and giving them respect. Someone I very much disagree with may have good points to be made and I should be open to that. Now that said, I sometimes fail.

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#105

Post by grigjd3 »

tiglionabbit wrote: post #16

So, what do you do if you find someone else unreasonable and private arguments do not resolve the conflict?

I try not to keep such people in my life. Not a strict rules. My three year old daughter is often unreasonable. Also, I hope people can forgive me at times.

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#106

Post by Sacho »

Arizhel wrote: post #42
purple-again wrote: post #22

What an excellent concise framework for handling interactions in a diverse undivided culture. I'm surprised I've never seen this before. There WILL be disagreements and conflict because so many things are not objective and there is no rational right answer. Guns, abortion, gender, rights everything has a gambit of perfectly reasonable and acceptable positions along its spectrum. Many of which are contrarian by nature…

>We solve this dilemma in one of two ways. Blood and fire until 'they' are gone or learning to live together despite having differing moral structures. The first method is the only workable one. The second is impossible: many peoples' morality absolutely requires that they impose their moral values on everyone around them. So "learning to live together" would require living by the moral codes of people you fundamenta…

> The only way to live peacefully with anti-abortion people is to simply give up and let them ban abortion. This obviously is unacceptable to pro-choice people. I can make similar arguments about many other moral positions, such as whether women should be allowed to drive or not.

Well, I agree with your general point that people with an absolutist view of abortion may not be able to live together. However, for most, I think the issue is somewhere in the middle, and may not be the highest priority:

- you may be anti-abortion but agree that in some cases abortion is useful/necessary, e.g. for medical reasons

- you may be pro-choice but agree to a limit on abortions in the final weeks of pregnancy(rights of the woman vs rights of the unborn get very blurry there)

Abortion may be an important issue to you but not the most important. An anti-abortion person may be able to compromise living with legal abortion, as long as they are given some small compromise, and as long as their other issues are resolved to their satisfaction(e.g. economy). A pro-choice person may be able to compromise living with illegal abortion if given some compromise for the most extreme exceptions(e.g. rape, medical), as long as their more important issues are settled to their satisfaction.

I believe most people do not hold an absolutist view in earnest, even if they express one publicly. There are plenty of reasons why that is - it's much easier to give a voice to the absolutist view, it's a simple soundbite("abortion is murder!"), it's easy to "recruit" people by othering the opposition - "it's only idiot conservatives that want to ban abortion, no smart reasonable person would stop women from having a choice".

I would like to believe that, given the opportunity of honest discussion, people would agree that finding a compromise is best for their community. I believe the underlying issue behind many such social rifts is that the community cohesion has eroded away, with people split into tribes and into an us vs them mentality. This means that even if they are amenable to compromise, it's likely to happen only through members of their own community, as they see the rest as "others" who are not worth their time(examples here are a plenty, hopefully I don't need to give any..)

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#107

Post by terminalcommand »

braveo wrote: post #67
rrggrr wrote: post #37

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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonabl…

The legal idea of a reasonable person is not the same thing, they share a similar name only.

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.

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#108

Post by anigbrowl »

matt4077 wrote: post #94
anigbrowl wrote: post #48

'Reasonable' doesn't mean relaxed or even nice. It means being guided by reason, ie the application of logic to available evidence. Socrates was a reasonable person, and his insistence on being so made him a lot of enemies. It might be worthwhile to define this up front; this worthy advice seems to rest on an implicit understanding of 'reasonable' as meaning 'considerate' or 'not rocking the boat.'

The dictionary I just consulted lists your definition as "archaic". "Reasonable" means (to a reasonable observer) a lot more than the ability to think logically: - having sound judgement; fair and sensible: no reasonable person could have objected. - based on good sense: it seems a reasonable enough request | the guilt of a person on trial must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. - archaic: able to reason logically: m…

It's used every day in law courts.

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#109

Post by anigbrowl »

Arizhel wrote: post #51
anigbrowl wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's always the third option of marginalizing the absolutists and ignoring their demands until they die off from old age and no longer form a powerful constituency. I'm not saying it always works or is inherently better, but it certainly has worked in some places.

Isn't that still the same as "blood and fire"? Sure, you can just ignore the moralists you don't like, but what if they don't go quietly? Then you have to use something stronger against them. With the abortion issue for example, it's been a never-ending tug-of-war in politics, with each side constantly working to change the makeup of the SCOTUS to either maintain the status quo or to overturn it. While not an actual,…

No. Not everything has to be adversarial all the time. I'm trying to make a general point, not comment on US politics in particular.

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#110

Post by watwut »

anigbrowl wrote: post #49
Arizhel wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We solve this dilemma in one of two ways. Blood and fire until 'they' are gone or learning to live together despite having differing moral structures. The first method is the only workable one. The second is impossible: many peoples' morality absolutely requires that they impose their moral values on everyone around them. So "learning to live together" would require living by the moral codes of people you fundamenta…

There's always the third option of marginalizing the absolutists and ignoring their demands until they die off from old age and no longer form a powerful constituency. I'm not saying it always works or is inherently better, but it certainly has worked in some places.

What do you do with young absolutist? Do absolutists who are better at marginalization game?
Post reply on HN