Common sense sometimes means common ignorance

[Kriminal99]

In this thread I just wanted to express some rather common viewpoints that I consider to be wholly defeated by various arguments, but that are often supported very emotionally by people who seek no other justification than that other people agree with them (bandwagon fallacy)

 

Naive Nonviolence - some people believe that violence is a huge taboo, but other forms of aggressiveness are not. They may assault other persons' characters often stretching the facts, outright lying, or using other forms of manipulation (such as fallacies) to try and force people to accept their claims and negatively affect another person. Then they expect to be protected from any direct repercussions from the person they are attacking.

 

In a well formed moral system such forms of deception and manipulation are damaging because they limit people's understanding of their surroundings and thus their ability to plan. While such people can be dealt with by meticulously identifying and calling out the tactics they are using, the truly just lesson they failed to learn could be better taught very simply by walking up to them and punching them in the face.

 

The most advanced lesson against any kind of aggression, not just violence is that it (and rightly so since non violent aggression can be just as or more damaging) just escalates and leads to you being hurt or hurting someone that is a part of your life and could potentially be someone you care about. But this balance fails when someone walks around acting aggressively towards others in a non violent manner. Even if escalation to violence was prevented, all that happens is the same damaging exchange drags out into much longer lasting attempts to destroy each others lives that results in suffering on both sides.

 

Naive Tolerance

 

Many people associate tolerance with a sort of "don't ask don't tell" policy, and bigotry with anyone who verbally disagrees with a point of view.

 

If there is a type of intolerance that is truly wrong, it is the use of debate fallacies to prevent an opposing party from expressing their views or acting with the assumption that you are right and the opposing group is wrong.

 

It can never be wrong to simply express a point of view, even one against a certain group's ideas. One of those viewpoints is correct and the other wrong. If your viewpoint is correct, than you are giving them information that they can use to more effectively plan. If your argument is incorrect then you are giving them a chance to teach you something new.

 

It is simply impossible for a belief to float in some sort of magical space between correct and incorrect. Any claim, to have any significance or impact, has to direct behavior in, or reference the physical world in at least some way. This provides a means to evaluate the statement's truth or falsehood.

 

Naive Morality

 

Some people believe that if something makes another person feel bad, it is automatically wrong. There are many problems with this thinking.

 

An obvious counter example is that if you see someone about to eat a poisonous mushroom, and yell at them not to, it might make them feel foolish. However it will also save their life.

 

From this example extends an argument that applies to all situations where a person might be slightly hurt emotionally by someone's claim. The idea is not that we disregard the person's feelings, but rather we consider them less important than the presentation of any true information. Any such true information can be used by them to more successfully operate in the world. Our only obligation is that anything hurtful we say be true to the best of our knowledge. Otherwise we are hurting someone for no reason.

 

Can there be something that is true and hurtful, such that the presentation of this knowledge is worth less than the damage it causes? The answer is ABSOLUTELY NOT. In order for it to be hurtful, it has to be recognition of something that is already going on in the person's life. It is often something that causes a lower amount of pain to the person persistently, and by addressing it you are causing a larger amount of pain for a short period in exchange for the removal of this persistent pain, and perhaps even making them much happier in the long run.

[HydrogenBond]

Common sense is defined as: sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts. Common sense first reduces things to the least common denominator where it becomes easier to deduce and infer. Common sense, although simple on the surface, actually requires a good understanding of the complexity, be able to reduce things to the lowest common denominator.

[Kriminal99]

I'm not sure if a textbook definition has any value for such a commonly used term (if that even is one). It's meaning is how people use it, any written definition simply tries to capture that, usually unsuccessfully (as in this case). IThe definition you give is horribly vague and circular. It mostly just defers the meaning to "soundness" and similar concepts which have been the topic of philosophical debate for centuries. Perception is also has undetermined meaning. Least common denominator is a math term which means you are using a vague metaphor in your definition. So then I guess we are left with the question of, what does your post have to do with the thread?

[Donk]

Can there be something that is true and hurtful, such that the presentation of this knowledge is worth less than the damage it causes? The answer is ABSOLUTELY NOT. In order for it to be hurtful, it has to be recognition of something that is already going on in the person's life. It is often something that causes a lower amount of pain to the person persistently, and by addressing it you are causing a larger amount of pain for a short period in exchange for the removal of this persistent pain, and perhaps even making them much happier in the long run.

At 9pm the phone rang when I was working alone. A co-worker's wife:

 

"Is George there? I have some bad news for him."

 

I thought fast. "He was around a few minutes ago. Can I get him to call you back, or take a message?"

 

"Tell him his father called. His mother's had a bad fall."

 

I assured her I'd pass the message on, then dug into the personnel files. Phone number of the girl in the office George had been spending some time with lately... He was home in five minutes and on his way across country in fifteen. His mother died that night, but he got there in time, and in time to support his father.

 

The episode was a wake-up call, he told me later. As far as I know he never cheated again. Certainly they both looked good at their 30th wedding anniversary celebrations a few years ago.

 

If I'd done the "true and hurtful" thing all those years ago, things might have turned out very differently. I'm very glad I lied.

[HydrogenBond]

Common sense is an intuitive sense of reality one gains over time from experience. This should not be confused with common knowledge, which are things you are taught as a group, and don't come up with on you own. For example, someone with common sense will quickly learn to pick up the tea cup from the little loop handle because common sense tells them the cup will be hot. To assist people without common sense, we can teach them this handle trick with common knowledge, so they can do the common sense thing, even without common sense.

 

If there was no common knowledge, that collectively told us the earth was round, one would have to rely on common sense to figure that out. If you ever go to the beach, on a clear day, and look at the ocean, you can see the slight curvature of the horizon. But for many centuries, common knowledge made people doubt their common sense. Once a few people, with enough common sense, were able to prove the earth was round, this became common knowledge, for those without this common sense.

 

If you came upon a rear engine car, and opened the hood (front) and saw no engine, someone with common sense would start to look elsewhere for the motor, even if you never saw this car before. If one lacks common sense, but has the common knowledge that the engine is in the front, they may conclude someone stole the engine. Common knowledge, without common sense can create periods of ignorance, when the exceptions to the rules of common knowledge, appear.

 

Say someone with common sense was trying to the cross a busy street. Their common sense will allow them to time their movement in terms of their speed and angle to reach the other side safely. This could get you a ticket for J-walking, if they are ignorant of the common knowledge, one can only cross at cross walks. That common knowledge is there to help those without this particular common sense; those who can't time their position and movement in conjunction to other moving objects.

 

Nobody has common sense in all things. The more we do anything, the more we gain experiences for our common sense. This allows us to detach from the herd of common knowledge and use our individual common sense. As long as everything is going smooth common knowledge can be enough. But when things change we need to rely more on our common sense.