Final answer:
The reasonableness doctrine, as articulated in the Pope v. Illinois case, refers to applying objective standards to determine if a material lacks social value, which is central to the Miller test on obscenity.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the case of Pope v. Illinois, the correct doctrine articulated by the Court is that a person applying objective standards would find the material to lack any social value is the c) reasonableness doctrine.
The reasonableness doctrine is tied to the 'Miller test', which assesses the obscenity of material based on community standards and the work's lack of serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. This principle is applied to maintain societal order, as seen in cases dealing with obscenity, where the courts need to balance First Amendment rights with community standards of decency. Philosophical approaches to morality, such as those invoking a telos, suggest that objective assessment of actions based on their fulfillment toward a goal can establish some form of objective morality. However, this does not typically translate into legal standards, which are more focused on pragmatism and the balancing of rights and societal interests.