Philosophy books have had a bad reputation for a very long time. They must be about obscure topics, written in incomprehensible technical jargon, and be at least 100 pages too long. That is not to say that there are not classic philosophy texts that are an integral part of our culture, that are taught in colleges, and that help define our lived lives. But what about today? Is it possible to find a philosophy book published in 2026 that is interesting and accessible? That actually is meaningful to current readers?
I learned of Lawlor’s book in an engaging essay in a recent issue of The New Yorker. She is Henry Waldgrave Stuart Professor of Philosophy at Stanford University. The review was intriguing and a book only 213 pages long sounded plausible. I am here to confirm that it is a beautifully written book, one that does not pull punches and that does not hide behind academic terminology. It is of the moment and I hope it gets wide circulation and readership.
Let me explain why. The force driving Lawlor’s book is to analyze the relationship between rational and reasonable thinking and to make the case for restoring value and prestige to the second cognitive style. Lawlor addresses the difference in multiple contexts – in law, in personal identity, and social values. Rational man has had several names including Homo economicus and has been studied in clever models such as the response to the Prisoner’s Dilemma (read the book for details). She points out that greater emphasis was traditionally placed on being rational, namely, making intellectually valid decisions about ourselves and the world around us. Reasonableness was dismissed as a lesser virtue, one that was poorly defined and incapable of promoting good behavior.
The book is rich in stories. Lawlor starts the book with a court case that occurred in Louisiana in 1992. A 16-year old Japanese exchange student was invited to a Halloween party but unfortunately went to the wrong house. After a confused and ominous exchange with the owner, even though the student started walking away from the door, the owner of the house became anxious for his safety and well-being and fatally shot the student. A criminal jury acquitted the homeowner and considered the shooting a reasonable response to a perceived threat to life. A driver in Ohio is issued a summons for exceeding 85 miles per hour in his vehicle, above the reasonable limit. Governor Pataki and Mayor Guliani argued whether it was reasonable for the mayor to violate the standing law and run again as a candidate for another time after the September 11th attack.
Lawlor’s book begins with the standard view, namely that a rational person is “logical, smart, and unemotional” while a reasonable person is “honest, kind, and fair.” But her central thesis is that this characterization overstates the value of rationality and misrepresents the importance of reasonableness to meaningful interpersonal interactions and the stable function of society. She assembles a wide selection of psychological data and real and theoretical circumstances to redefine the meaning of reasonableness and to identify its key components. She makes a compelling case that to be reasonable means to be sensitive to the needs and views of others, be willing to recalibrate one’s own view in response to the concerns of others, and to be willing to change your course of action if pressed by someone who thinks differently from you. These are not features that are generally invoked when describing a rational person and she makes the claim that this indicates that reasonableness is more important than rationality in grounding society.
The link to the current political environment is clear and acknowledged. Without mentioning any names, Lawlor vividly chronicles how loss of reasonableness is the underlying defining feature in our polarized argumentative world. The fact that political parties articulate programs that fail to account for the needs of the other and the inability to acknowledge any value to the views of others are signs of rampant unreasonableness. It is unclear whether reasonableness has a biological basis and whether it was favored by evolution. But anyone reading the news or monitoring the policy objectives of the current administration cannot escape the notion that reasonableness is a “misunderstood” and clearly undervalued virtue.
One gap in Lawlor’s narrative is medicine. She does not have a chapter on reasonableness in patient care. To me this is an area in need of attention. A case can be made that the movement towards evidence-based medicine is a move to incorporate more rationality into medical care. To be sure, incorporation of the patient voice and patient-related outcomes in the assessment of treatment efficacy is a sign of attention to the other and recognition of the need for reasonableness. But I fear that this information may be prone to quantitative analysis that undermines a genuine commitment to listen to the patient and treat that person on their own individual terms. Clinical research is urgently needed to learn whether exciting novel therapies are being utilized in a reasonable way, namely with genuine attention to the needs of the patient, a willingness to change the plan if the clinical course does not meet expectations, and a realization that medical care is just one component in the total scope of social wellbeing. That research team would be wise to include Lawlor as a consultant.
In closing, books often have an impact because they are read by a receptive reader at just the right moment time. In the beginning of May, I was on vacation with my wife. After a day biking and hiking, I accidentally fell and suffered a head injury. I lost consciousness for two days and needed to be hospitalized in an unfamiliar place for six days. On my return to New York, I was cared for by wonderful people and I think, or should I say I hope, that I am getting back to “normal.” But one thing was clear to me. I am not sure how I usually think and behave but over the last two months, I am sure I was not as reasonable as I should be. But one good and reasonable decision I made was to read this book. It has helped me appreciate what I lost and offered guidance about what I should pay attention to as I get back to myself. I cannot think of higher praise for any philosophy book.
Being Reasonable: The Case for a Misunderstood Virtue
Krista Lawlor
Harvard University Press, 2026. 213 pp
Web image by Medhum.org.
