The hypothetical person

A hypothetical... a reasonable person. Someone that would perform only the rational in any given situation, kind of like a test dummy, FYI is the examination in common law for negligence: a duty of care and breach of that duty. The reasonable person if he/she did exist, flawless in all forms of thought, perfect and complete, accurate and error-less would be...One. Dull. Person.

Rationality, is the sensible action or way of thinking that would be applied in good judgment...within reason. I would say logical, but that cuts it onto a different plane. Logical is...robotic and emotionless. No conscience defining right and wrong in confinement to humane. Only the definition for success. Take a game of chess. The highly abstracted form: simple and fun of the otherwise bloody, battered and brutal reality of war. The one motive and objective is to succeed, and by all means ruthlessly cut your way to the finish. Logic is mechanical. To cherish is illogical in a game of life and death but it is rational to care. Real setting: to cherish life... Why are you battling in the first place? Your sinning! ...you lose the war, the kingdom and the crown; you may even die because your too weak to not strike the last blow to the enemy king at you feet. Game setting: what life? It's just plastic pieces. No harm at all except you may want to spare your friends' feelings because they suck! (I'm a beginner myself I suck too.)

Logic is correctness in its most basic function. Rationality adds colour to correctness.

A hypothetical scenario: a naive, innocent three year old; no knowledge of the effects of extreme heat on human flesh, places hand on burning hot stove. How did he reach the height of the stove? Climbed an ever so conveniently placed chair. Why was stove burning hot? Hypothetical parent just finished cooking and had conveniently just left the kitchen leaving hypothetical son alone, conveniently too, in kitchen. The following reaction: instantaneously withdraws hand and is washed with an overwhelming need and does cry, scream...possible momentary loss of balance...Pause. Is it rationality or instinct? What? Is it rationality or instinct that he never touches the stove again? The reaction and the sobbing and tantrum that follows is instinct from the searing of the second degree burn. It would be easy to say instinct warns him of the potential of high temperatures for life. That ingrained feeling of fear/doubt/flashing caution sign from somewhere inside. Well it can be confused with that. But doesn't rationality fit better? It is he's discretion, sensible judgment to 'never do that again'. ...It's strange to say a three year old uses discretion.

Rationality grows. It is the ability to learn from mistakes, to learn in general. All the reasoning that puts one and one together to give the outcome of two. The building blocks...Lego being put together as a child concentrates with deep expression on whatever it is that his building.

So the reasonable person...maybe he/she is not dull. But always right. How annoying! He/she is logical, sees the black and white but is also rational, sees also grey. Does not follow a manual set in stone, adapts. The same but fifteen year old hypothetical boy won't sob from the same offence for the sake of his dignity...or so I hope. What man would he grow up to be if he did?