 So Rawls has given us an account of what it means to be a competent moral judge, and amongst the conditions was reasonable. Now we didn't dive too much into it before, but he's got some conditions for reasonable as well. Let's take a look at those. The first condition for reasonable is that a person has a grasp of inductive reason or inductive logic. Well, the idea here is that a person will be able to take specific cases and then generalize. A person with a grasp of inductive reason will be able to look at specific instances, determine what they have in common, determine how they're different from other sets of instances, and be able to generalize across all of these. This will be especially useful in trying to explicate to be able to determine what moral actions have that are different from immoral actions. The second condition is that a reasonable person will be able to see both sides of an issue. There are going to be reasons for and against any given moral action. A reasonable person will be able to determine whose interests are affected by what action and who is interest and most important in a given circumstance. And while Rawls doesn't explicitly state it this way, it's entirely possible that there's going to be more than two sides to any given issue. And a reasonable person is going to account for all of them. A reasonable person will have an open mind. This does not mean that the reasonable person will believe just anything or will consider just any conclusion, whatever. But a reasonable person will consider a conclusion given new evidence. It is perfectly acceptable for a reasonable person, someone with an open mind, to reach a conclusion and stick with it. But what makes a closed-minded person in Rawls' estimation is that given new evidence, someone will not accept it. So to be clear, being open-minded does not mean that you never disagree with anybody. Having an open mind only means that if given new evidence, you'll reconsider the judgment. Finally, a reasonable person is self-aware. You have a background, you have a history, you have inclinations and preferences. Any one of these can very quickly lead to a bias or prejudice. Now biases and prejudices are unavoidable. Everybody has them. And Rawls is not saying an open-minded person has to suddenly rid oneself of one's own prejudice or bias. But an open-minded person must be aware of them, must be able to list them and acknowledge these biases, acknowledge these prejudices, and correct judgments in light of that bias or in light of that prejudice. Indeed, we might even say that the first thing a reasonable person should do when considering a moral judgment is to first recognize one's own biases, one's own prejudices. Giving up any one of these conditions comes to the price. If you give up inductive reason, you think that somebody can be reasonable and yet not be able to recognize what instances have in common, what makes them all the same sort of thing. If you give up seeing both sides and you think somebody is reasonable looking at one's own preferred side, there's nothing more to being reasonable than just looking at reasons either of for or against, but not both. If you give up open-mindedness then somebody is reasonable by reaching decision and refusing to consider any new evidence. Somebody could still be reason, will just look at some set of early evidence, reach a conclusion and say, okay, I'm done. That's it. If you give up self-awareness then you say somebody is reasonable and yet they never consider how their own feelings, emotions, backgrounds, biases and prejudices are affecting their decisions. Indeed, you might even say that somebody is reasonable if they never even question whether they have a bias or a prejudice. If you start out thinking that you are without a bias or without a prejudice, you're mistaken. So these are Rawls conditions for what it means to be a reasonable person. Here's a question. Are you reasonable?