A Person of Ordinary Moral Firmness or becoming “A Reasonable Ralph”
A person of ordinary moral firmness is a legal term used to describe the hypothetical reasonable person employed as a benchmark in determining whether a person’s actions were justified in a self-defence situation. The concept of the reasonable person is used in many areas of the law, including self-defence.
In self-defence cases, the question is whether a person’s actions were reasonable given their circumstances. One way to determine this is to compare the person’s actions to what a person of ordinary moral firmness would have done in the same situation.
The reasonable person concept is meant to be an objective standard rather than one based on an individual’s personal characteristics or beliefs. It is intended to represent the level of caution, judgment, and self-control that would be exercised by a hypothetical person who is considered to be of average intelligence and moral character.
In a self-defence case, a person’s actions of ordinary moral firmness would be judged based on the information and perceptions available to the person at the time of the incident. This means that if a person believed they were in imminent danger of being harmed, and their actions were reasonable, given that belief, they may be justified in using force to defend themselves.
For example, suppose a person was confronted by another person who was armed and threatening them, and the person used force to defend themselves. In that case, their actions may be justified if a person of ordinary moral firmness would have done the same thing in the same situation.
On the other hand, if a person’s actions were not reasonable given their circumstances, they may not be justified in using force in self-defence. For example, suppose a person was confronted by another person who was unarmed and not threatening them, and the person used force to defend themselves. In that case, their actions may not be considered justified.
It is important to note that the concept of the reasonable person is just one factor in determining whether a person’s actions were justified in self-defence. Other factors that may be considered include the severity of the threat the person faced, the amount of force used, and whether the person had any other options.
Overall, the legal meaning of a person of ordinary moral firmness is a benchmark used to determine whether a person’s actions were reasonable and justified in a self-defence situation. It is an objective standard based on the perceptions and information available to the person at the time of the incident and is intended to represent the level of caution, judgment, and self-control that would be exercised by a hypothetical person of average intelligence and moral character.
