What is common sense?

At first glance of this word, you look at it and think up an easy definition of a few simple words, which anyone could understand. Some of you accept this simple definition, while others take this topic as a trick question and dive deeper into the meaning. You think of a more complicated definition or maybe an example or a solid argument for there to be no such thing as common sense. Whether you left it at the simple definition or dove deeper into the meaning, you all are correct.

The truth is this: Everybody has their own form of common sense.

If such is the truth, how can we come upon an agreement on anything?

Let me illustrate this before moving on.

First of all, there are many hot button political issues that can get people arguing on and on for hours, days, maybe even weeks. One of those issues is abortion. One crowd of people looks at this and says, "It is an immoral practice." While others say a woman has the right to chose what to do with her own baby. These two completely opposite views on the same subject are merely emotion arguments to their side of the abortion theory. The problem with this: There are no solid facts to back it up. Some people relate their common sense strictly to their emotion, and don't need solid facts to back it up. These feelings make completely weak arguments. Such common sense should not be trusted.

Now that we've eliminated one form of common sense, lets move on to a different issue, and see what forms of common sense dictate the rulings of this. This example is the death penalty. One group says, "They should get what they deserve, which is death." Other say, "They should get what they deserve, which is whatever crime they committed." While a third party says, "Anybody can change, we should put them in jail until they die or they change their ways." Now that we've heard a couple emotional replies, let us hear some factual replies. "Based on evidence from lawyers of the bar association, as well as data held by the United States National Government, every murderer that is killed by the death penalty prevents three murders from happening." Now let's look at the other side, "According to an agreement by the bar association, as well as many cases of mistakes in the past, there isn't substantial enough evidence to give anyone the death penalty, because they might not even be the person who committed the crime." (I could've added more to each side, but I'm just trying to get the point across.)

Wait... both sides of the argument used information from the bar association. Even the source of evidence has two different sides to it. Both sides were backed up by hard evidence. Even if it isn't an emotional reaction, decisions backed by evidence can even be as opposing as the north and south pole. If cold hard evidence won't show the correct side of common sense, what will?

Now that we've seen facts used for two sides of one argument, let's go to a different subject and see what we have. If common sense is based on something else, then there should probably be less division. In America, there is probably only one thing to base views on that can be trusted: The United States Constitution. With views based on an outside source, there should be a little less fuzziness.

The political issue we will use the Constitution with is gun control laws. Side A, "Guns should be allowed because the Constitution clearly says 'The right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed'." Side B, "There should be strict gun control laws because the Constitution clearly says only in 'A well regulated militia'."

Even if you do base it on something like the constitution, there are still many difference views in it. The interpretation of the constitution is just as fuzzy as hundreds of people with their own forms of common sense.

One last test remains to see if we can find a common sense that everybody agrees on. IF we base things on religion. If you're an atheist or if that term offends you, if you don't believe in God, then there are thousands of different viewpoints for you to have, but they should sound something like this, "Do whatever is in your best interest." If you are in a religion, then there are still thousands of different religions and your viewpoint should be, "Do whatever pleases God first." Still the same problems occur and there is no agreement whatsoever.

With all these different examples, I'm sure you can gather that there isn't one form of common sense. Each person gathers their own and makes their decisions based on it. In a tyrannical country, all forms of common sense except the dictator's are silence, and only one shows through. All of us would agree that that isn't what we want to do. In a Democratic-Republic, like the United States, our disagreements and squabbles are decided by the vote and the will of the people. This "will of the people" is decided by 51% of the vote.

Since we can never seem to agree on one side or the other, we should at least find some way of letting others speak as well as us. Since we can't agree, we should agree to disagree. This may sound cliche or this may sound completely bogus, but my point is don't condemn the viewpoints of others without taking into careful consideration the arguments on their side. If someone disagrees with you, the worst way to beat them in an argument is to say they are too stupid to realize the truth. Always take their side into careful consideration, before explaining your side and clearly stating facts, your interpretation of the facts, and how the facts are relevant.

AAAGH I had like 3 pages written and they got deleted.

I will come back sometime in a few days and respond.

Poor Sev. Why can't you leave one-liners like we do.

On topic:
Good speech that.

That was the smartest thing I've heard/read all day. And I was watching MI-5, so that says something.

Thanks. I'm waiting for that three page response from Severian.

I have always thought of common sense merely as something everyone knows or should be able to deduce by themselves. Never really an opinion on a topic that everyone should share.

It should be, but that is one of my points. For instance, black hawk down is hailed as a catastrophe. And common sense tells you that means a lot of soldiers died or something of that nature. When in fact, in black hawk down every 1 U.S. soldier that was killed amounted to the deaths of 80 enemy soldiers.