The reasonable person standard plays a central role in the law, figuring prominently in tort law, criminal law, and administrative law. However the reasonable person has also attracted substantial criticism from egalitarian critics and feminists insofar as it presupposes contested notions of'normal' behaviour and may discriminate against certain classes of defendant. Judges and mainstream theorists also increasingly puzzle over what the standard amounts to and how to apply it. Using these controversies as a point of departure, Rethinking the Reasonable Person examines the promise andthe perils of the reasonable person standard. Ultimately, it argues that an objective standard is not only defensible but essential. Yet only with a radical reconstruction will it be possible to realize the promise of the standard and to ensure a truly egalitarian conception of responsibility.