that I had with Audrey a while ago. She mentioned the idea that what I said wasn’t common sense, but my own value system, and that there was no way that a government could fairly implement what I said.

What I said was approximately this:
Given a situation where one could choose whether or not to kill a murderer to save an entire country, what would you do?

I would definitely kill the murderer. My response to my own question.

Audrey then stated that this was definitely a question of ethics, which I acknowledge. And since she mentioned that she’s studying it and that, presumably, there are solid arguments against my judgment and assumption of the term “common sense”, I’ll make my statement here, mostly because it’s 4 in the morning.

Audrey was under the impression that this decision wasn’t “common sense” to everyone. Agreed.

But honestly, I really don’t know why it should be. Common sense wouldn’t be common sense if everyone in the world thought it was fundamentally correct. That’s called undeniable fact, and people still have trouble with that. A more applicable term to common sense would be a no-duh answer to a reasonable person (I’m not going to have fights over who is or who is not “reasonable”; this is why druggies and criminals think everything is good in the right book. Your arguments defend and give people like them a chance; be a lawyer, not a policeman.)

Not everyone uses common sense; in fact, most people don’t. We usually call these people stupid. But, I digress.

Another thing Audrey mentioned was that, if I killed this murderer, wouldn’t I feel guilty?

Yes. ..I don’t know why I wouldn’t. But, I mean, to each his own.

Next, she mentions that a society implementing my sense of justice wouldn’t work, because I would also be at fault, after killing the murderer. Again, agreed.

Wouldn’t it be a vicious cycle then (not something she explicitly stated, but I’m assuming this is how far she was going,) if I was guilty, killed, then the person who killed me, killed, then…etc.

My take on the situation wasn’t something that was feasible in a government situation. I don’t know where that came from; it may have stemmed from my idea of common sense and her different take on it. But nowhere did I state that this is something every institution should uphold; different organizations require different things. What works in Microsoft doesn’t work with Apple. Even tiny things like that need company evangelists with very specific ways of thinking.

My point is this: value systems are just the opinions that matter to you. I can be a “consequentialist” or a “Christian” or whatever word you want to pin me to. Morals matter, because they protect you more than you will ever know. I know parties love hearing liberal views, but when you’re faced at gunpoint and the police are debating on the gunner’s rights?

You better damn well hope they’re on your side.