I. INTRODUCTION Classical Greek philosopher Plato "described people as driving a chariot drawn by two horses, reason and passions," explaining one of the most fundamental distinctions in human thought processes. (1) American jurisprudence has often focused on a similar dichotomy, with the "reason-based dictates of law" on one hand and an "intuition-based sense of justice" on the other. (2) Whether an individual analyzes a problem through the application of reason based legal rules or reacts to it as an intuitive matter of justice can yield very different results. (3) With human reasoning resting on these two distinct legs, is it possible for an American jury to act realistically and rationally when assessing damages?
