What is the term used for standards based on what a reasonable person would do?

The correct term for standards based on what a reasonable person would do is "objective." This concept is integral to various areas of law, particularly negligence, where the actions of individuals are evaluated against what a typical reasonable person would do in similar circumstances. An objective standard focuses on observable behaviors and actions rather than personal feelings, beliefs, or interpretations.

In legal contexts, using an objective standard helps ensure consistency and predictability in decision-making, thereby promoting fairness. For example, in negligence cases, determining whether a defendant's conduct fell below the standard expected of a reasonable person allows courts to assess liability in a systematic way.

The other terms do not align with this definition. Subjective usually pertains to personal opinions or feelings, which contrasts with the notion of an objective standard that relies on commonly accepted behavior. Negligent refers to the failure to take reasonable care, which is often assessed using the objective standard. Defensive strategies typically relate to legal tactics used to protect against claims or allegations rather than a standard of behavior. Thus, "objective" is the appropriate choice in the context of evaluating conduct against societal norms.