Why 'common sense' persists

Our text's contention that common sense is not, in fact, 'common' for everyone is an exacting remark--a refreshing grounder for all the postmodernity, multiplicity, narrative contention ballyhoo that we've endured thus far. Chapter 3's division of different ethics into six schools of thoughts was a useful, if overreaching, way to ground these concepts in practical examples that readers can identify, but it's more useful--and less dictatorial--to simply say that common sense is only based on our perception of what is universal, and in this day and age, 'universal' does not really exist at all. As I thought about this statement, I couldn't help but reflect on times in which I've thought others lacked common sense, and opposing times in which I've been told I had none. The contradiction is blatantly obvious in retrospect. If common sense is truly common for all, how can we see its absence in the same people who see its absence in us?

What's challenging about this notion, from a "go out into the world and practice what you've learned" standpoint, will be reminding myself that others (in fact, just about everyone) possesses what they believe to be common sense and it's unfair of me to judge their errors as affronts to what I think is universal knowledge. I predict this will be more difficult than recognizing "the other" and its differing ethics due to societal and cultural influence. It's become so commonplace to decry one's lack of common sense--a pithy retort, intellectual assertion, and ego boost, all in one. It's spoken aloud--very often--versus the silent passive-aggression that holds disagreement in our mind where no one can judge how our ethics compare to another's. With common sense, we know (or at least, perceive) that everyone else present shares our common, universal sense except for the person we're judging, so it's easier to call out their error when we think we have supporters and to do so is more socially acceptable.