In criminal cases of self-defense and provocation, and civil cases of negligence, culpability is often decided with reference to how a reasonably prudent person (RPP) would have behaved in similar circumstances. The RPP is said to be an objective standard in that it eschews consideration of a defendant's unique background or characteristics. We discuss theory and evidence suggesting that in morally relevant judgments, including those involving negligence, self-defense, and provocation, the tendency to rely on the self—on one's own values and predilections—dominates considerations of the RPP. We consider subjective standards that have been proposed as alternatives to the RPP and review research on this topic. We conclude by considering avenues for future research, particularly addressing conditions in which self-standards of reasonableness are most likely to prevail.

中文翻译：

---

理性人标准：心理和法律视角

在自卫和挑衅的刑事案件以及疏忽的民事案件中，罪责通常是根据一个合理谨慎的人 (RPP) 在类似情况下的行为来决定的。RPP 据说是一个客观标准，因为它避开了对被告独特背景或特征的考虑。我们讨论的理论和证据表明，在道德相关的判断中，包括那些涉及疏忽、自卫和挑衅的判断，依赖自我的倾向——基于自己的价值观和偏好——主导了 RPP 的考虑。我们考虑了作为 RPP 替代方案提出的主观标准，并回顾了有关该主题的研究。最后，我们考虑了未来研究的途径，