Quote:
|
if we are all just animals guided by "common sense" with no absolutes, then how can anyone argue that their "common sense" is superior to anyone else's?
|
Sen, the problem, I think, with your line of reasoning is that it is ultimately either nihilistic or extremely divisive. This is because you either believe that well, if there is no "right" and "wrong" except how things are perceived, then, well, nothing is "right" or "wrong." Everything becomes relative.
Or, your reasoning leads you to believe that if there is a "true" "right" or "wrong," it must come from solely something otherwordly, like God or a higher being (I for one do believe in God, by the way). The problem with this philosophy is that it is highly divisive, as everyone tries to insist that the morals/ethics/rules laid down by their God/Supreme Being is right, and everyone else's is wrong.
I happen to believe reason can provide for some morals/ethics/rules for a society. I think the Social Contract is a perfect example of logic dictating society norms. That doesn't mean I agree with the Contract completely, or that I think that only reason has a role to play. It is difficult: I believe in reasoned morality, and a higher being, and in moral relativity (to a degree...you, know, relatively...). That's why it's called philosophy: there's no easy answer and all that discussion will probably lead nowhere. Habermas, if he had any common sense, would be depressed.