Why “That’s True for You, but Not for Me” Isn’t True for Anyone

I am not a rabid anti-postmodernist; there are aspects of postmodernism that I find very helpful when talking and writing about faith. Relativism, however, is not one of them.

One of the best examples of postmodern relativism is the catchphrase “that may be true for you, but it’s not true for me.” Often, this phrase is  heard in the context of a conversation between a Christian (or other person of faith) and an atheist or agnostic. The person of faith says something that makes the other person uncomfortable, so he responds by saying “that may be true for you, but not for me.”

My guess is that at least half of the time, the person mouthing this slogan is not making a statement about deeply held philosophical beliefs, but is just trying to end a conversation without actually having to come right out and say “I think you’re wrong.”  In many cases, I suspect that the person saying it has never taken the time to think through the logical ramifications of his position; he just likes the fact that it makes him sound deep and tolerant and all the other things people like to think of themselves as being.

And, as often as not, it does effectively stop the conversation.

For the percentage of people who really believe that truth is relative, the simplest response to this statement is to make sure that they understand that if all truth is relative, then what they believe is no more true than what someone else believes. In fact, the person saying “it’s true for you, but not for me” may believe it, but if his conversation partner doesn’t, then “it’s true for you, but not for me,” isn’t true for everyone, so the assumption that truth is relative is, itself, relative.  (Confused yet?)

In 2010, I had the honor of blogging for the Lausanne 2010 conference in Capetown, South Africa. One of the advance papers written for the conference was “Truth Matters, Stand Up for Truth.”  by Chinese theologian Carver T. Yu. In the paper, Yu describes the plurality that those in the East have always lived with—a plurality that accepts the right of other religions to exist, but also assumes that, in the end, one of them will prove to be true—and the rest will find out they were wrong.

Yu goes on to describe what he sees as a different, more destructive pluralism infecting today’s world:

The pluralism in vogue today is entirely different. It is an ideology that proclaims that truth is a cultural construction valid only for the culture that constructs it. It has therefore no bearing on another culture or system of meaning. There is no truth that can claim to be truth for all. All truths are relative to one another. The pluralist pushes the point further from cultures to individuals. The individual is now presumed to be the ultimate ground of reality, the foundation on which meaning and values are created. The postmodern pluralist believes that each and every individual creates her own logic and makes her own rules in constructing her own world of reality and value.

Yu includes in his paper the oft-told story about Ravi Zacharias who, while giving a lecture at Oxford, was confronted by a student who believed that “right” and “wrong” were only personal preferences. Zacharias then asked the student if he would think it was wrong if he (Zacharias) killed a baby in front of the class as a demonstration. The student replied, “I would not like it, but I could not say it was wrong.”

Yu’s concern is that if society cannot say something is “wrong” in an absolute sense, then there is no basis for arguing against the belief that might equals right. The strong can, and will, do whatever they want to the weak without compunction because without moral absolutes there is no basis for stopping them. The person who believes that all truth is equally valid (or equally invalid) has no justification for trying to stop a power-mad dictator from slaughtering thousands of innocent people. Even if most people may not like it, the relativist—if he is consistent—must conclude that there is no objective argument against it. There is only preference.

Yu writes:

Without moral truth, might will become right. Tribal war is inevitable. Without the divine decree that the human person is made in the image of God, affirmed by the Creator to have absolute value and to be absolutely inviolable, why should anyone take the assertion that “all are born equal” seriously? What is the ground for such a belief, which is supposed to be the foundation of democracy?

While I agree with the author that relativism is logically unsustainable (which I won’t go into in this post), I don’t see it as the huge threat to society that Yu, and many others, do. Sure, the moral relativism and pluralism that Yu is describing is an effective way to neutralize the influence of faith in public life. And it has succeeded in marginalizing those who appeal to universal ideas of right and wrong in matters of public policy.

But moral relativism simply cannot be sustained as a way of life.

I don’t know anyone (including any honest atheist) who can consistently live out the belief that objective values of right and wrong do not exist. Defending moral relativism as a philosophical position might be possible for a while for someone who lives a comfortable, sheltered life in the suburbs. But the moment anyone comes face to face with real-world evil and cruelty (or even just an episode of Law & Order: SVU involving children), their conscience demands that certain acts be labeled “wrong.”

There may be the rare moral relativist who tries to be consistent and say that what Hitler did in killing 6 million men, women, and children wasn’t “wrong,” but (and I’m just guessing here), most people would not agree with him. Most people know intuitively—in their bones—what evil looks like and do not find the argument that morality is a construct of each individual society persuasive. As a group, we assert that a senseless act of cruelty is wrong—and that the perpetrator should have known better—whether it happens in a rural province in Bhutan or in New York City.

This, I think, is why the “moral argument” for God is far and away the most persuasive apologetic paradigm. Unlike other more cerebral syllogisms, the premise that objective moral obligations do, in fact, exist is something we all just intuitively know. It is, if you will, an aspect of the imago dei that appeals to both reason (objective moral imperatives exist, therefore there must be a source for such imperatives) and intuition (torturing children for fun is wrong!)

I am not as concerned as Yu that moral relativism will inevitably lead to a worldwide “might is right” movement that sweeps the world back into the Dark Ages. While “it’s true for you, but not for me,” may be an effective way to end an uncomfortable conversation, it is simply not the way people work. And we intuitively know it.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

DISCLAIMER: Blog entries made by individual authors reflect the views of the author and not necessarily the view of other CAA authors, or the official position of the group at large.
About Leslie Keeney

Leslie Keeney is getting her Masters of Philosophical Studies at Liberty University. She is interested in moral apologetics, and how myth, narrative, and pop culture can reveal the best of man’s universal moral intuition. Leslie lives in Lynchburg with her husband, two kids, and two cats. You can connect with her on Google+, Twitter, and Facebook. Leslie blogs at The Ruthless Monk

  • Steven Carr

    So are Jews and Muslims wrong to say that eating pork is wrong?

    Or is not eating pork true for them, but not true for Christians?

    How will God punish Jews and Muslims for believing He has banned the eating of pork products?

    Incidentally, is it just plain wrong to run the ball on 4th and 18 on your 20 yard line 2 minutes into the first quarter?

    Or are football plays only a matter of opinion, and nobody can say that one play is wrong and another football play is right?

    Was it wrong for this hypothetical god of the Christians to order entire tribes of men, women and children to be killed?

    Was it wrong of this hypothetical god of the Christians to arrange public orgies to take place as related in 2 Samuel 12:11?

    Or are public orgies morally right if Jehovah has arranged them?

    • curtis kempton

      First off. God warned the Jew’s about eating pork because of the impurities within the meat if not prepared right. It was easier for him to explain that it was bad for them then to try and show them the entire process of preparing the meat.
      Second you are pulling things out of context that are in the BIble and trying to use that as contradictory to say that believers are bad. God gave his law’s which are the ten commandments. If you would care to do the research and read past the little bits that you find on popular anti Bible website’s like http://www.Evilbible.com or Bible contradictory websites you would find that these people were disobeying God’s word and were using his name in vain which is a direct violation of the Commandments. The bible references these things that are cherry picked and put on display to try and make the Bible look bad so that the reader knew that MAN was doing wrong by God. God has ever right to teach a wrong doer a lesson. Everything he does is for a purpose everything he creates is for a purpose.

      • Steven Carr

        So your god warned Jews about eating pork, but was quite willing to let Christians die from poisoned pork?

        Why do Christians reinforce the stereotype that their beliefs are dumb by opening their mouths and trying to defend their religion?

        • curtis kempton

          Man has the free will of choice it is their God given right. I am sure Christians were warned of the dangers of eating pork because Christianity was formed by the Abrahamic Religion formed in the mid 1st century by the Jewish sect. They were well aware of it and by that time meat was common in meals and the purification process had been discovered. I don’t know where you saw that God “let” his people die from poison. The only reason anyone died for anything was because of their own decisions. Skeptics like yourself are the only one’s that are stereotyping us as “dumb” We have seen the truth and follow it because we accepted it. You have not. You will never see the truth until you accept it. You and all the other skeptics are the only ones holding you from the proof that you ask us for. We give you the answer you throw it in our face. You have let other’s corrupt your thought’s with nonsense to the point to where you have deemed Love as Evil, are you thinking for yourself when you let people you don’t know feed you the information that they have gotten from sources that are contradictory to themselves? You doubt God’s existence, you can not disprove his existence no one can disprove God’s existence and that is why you try and argue against it, you don’t know deep in your thoughts and deep in your heart, but God is real whether you like it or not, God is the basis for love, God is the Creator, God is the only reason you are alive. God gave you life because you have a purpose on this earth just like the rest of us and it is to serve him to love him as he loves you and to yearn to be with him eternally. Hades is real and is the holding cell for both the saved and condemned. You have no idea what pain or torment is, you have no idea what loss is. Nothing on this earth could ever amount to what is in store for the condemned souls that CHOSE to deny God’s gift of ever lasting love. It is all very real and we are trying to teach of God’s love so that all can be saved from ever being cast into the fire’s. Once you are there, there is no escape. You fear God’s existence just like all the other skeptics out there and that is why you strive to disprove God’s existence, you do not want to be held accountable for your actions on this earth. You have been forgiven of your sin’s, you were forgiven when God died in the flesh as Jesus Christ that you may be worthy of the gift. He put the ball in your court and that goes for every single person on this earth. Do you really want to risk an eternity of Torment like you have never known in your entire life time? God will make himself apparent to those who asks for his help and guidance with the deepest most utmost desperation and yearning. I GUARANTEE you that if you asks God to show show himself to you that you will find the proof you have been asking for since you first doubted. God will not make your life worse that is not his intent for his children. But if you choose to deny your creator, you will suffer the consequences. God is everyone’s God and has every right to disown his creation if they choose to deny his humble gift of love. Don’t let the real evil win you over. God will triumph in the end and Satan will be cast into the fires for eternity along with every person that chooses to not accept his gift of eternal life. It is impossible to say that he doesn’t exist if you don’t allow yourself to see.

          Do the research, the Bible is the word of God, The Bible is Tangible evidence. The Bible is NOT contradicting in any manner. The proof is there to those that choose to see it, and that is said in the Bible. Stop letting corrupted people make up your mind for you! You have a purpose on this earth. You are not some mere accident of a Cosmic explosion or process of elimination. You are an intelligent being designed by an intelligent creator. This is not a delusion this is reality. Don’t wait until it’s too late, find in your heart the truth for it shall set you free. God loves you and it pains him to see that you have turned away from him. God has a master plan for this earth and everyone on it. There will come a day that all war, famine, sickness, will all be gone and everyone will love each other equally and live for eternity in happiness. There are 2.2 billion Christian’s world wide and rising and that is out of the 7 billion on earth. You can accept God as still continue on with your life, You will notice a huge change in your life and how you view things and things we become a lot more clearer to you when you do. You will be happier. You are not a meaningless speck. You are worth more than all the riches in the world and that goes for everyone on this earth. Please don’t let Evil block you from the truth. You are a good person and you know that deep inside. God is the basis for that good and always has been.

          • curtis kempton

            Every knee shall bow every tongue confess. There will be one last chance for salvation before Satan and the condemned are cast into the fires. The only way to make it to that is by making it through the 7 year tribulation. other wise known as the Apocalypse. If you think you can rough it through that time up until God comes to stop Satan, then you must really be determined. The prophecies tell what will happen during that time, one of them being that the Beast will take control and will be backed by the Antichrist in everything he does. He will force everyone into his one world religion and will kill anyone that does not conform. The person that comes will fool everyone into thinking he is God. But the bible tells us that he is not. All the believers will be raptured before this happens. When that happens, When billions of people disappear. It will be all over the news everyone will see. It will be the sign that the end is coming. Don’t risk your valuable life Steven. I have never met you but i love you despite your discontent for beliefs and the creator. True Christians teach the correct Bible doctrine and God’s word for what it is. We do not dilute it or cherry pick or add our own bit’s to pretty it up. I have said my piece and hope that you may be tolerant.
            Have a nice day and God bless.

  • tildeb

    Truth and morality are not related words and they are not helpful describing the other meaning; they are terms of confusion when used jointly.

    If we think of morality as spectrum between good and bad, we quickly see that it is the the spectrum we use that determines where the moral effects of action apply. This idea is sometimes very difficult to appreciate if we assume there is only one spectrum. But the key to understanding why objective morality cannot exist – independent of those who wish to describe an action in moral terms – is to see this issue framed in a much more practical analogy: rather than good and bad, let’s use altitude and elevation to see if the argument about relativism destroys the value of these measurements.

    If we use this analogy then we can quickly see how relativism works to create a single and accurate means to compare and contrast. We don’t need an objective metric. All we need is to do is agree to use a basic metric for any specific issue involving height.

    We arbitrarily select different base metrics for measuring altitude. Sea level is typical because it’s fairly widespread and available. But we can also use any local site to accurately measure comparative differences of elevation. To argue that because the base metric is relative (I select this arbitrary point here to measure differences relative to it of those points there!) doesn’t alter the accuracy of the comparative results. We really can (and really do) obtain astounding ‘objective’ accuracy using relative scales all the time! We can even change the units of measurement (say from Imperial to metric) and still achieve extraordinarily accurate results independent of those doing the measuring.

    The same is true for morality. We can select different relative metrics (say human well being) and relative units (say, longevity) and still obtain objective comparative results. We don’t need an objective metric to do this. all we need to obtain objective results is to use the same base metric regardless of its relativity.

    • Steven Carr

      ‘We can select different relative metrics (say human well being) and relative units (say, longevity) and still obtain objective comparative results. We don’t need an objective metric to do this….’

      You can do that with religion as well.

      There are people who tell you that eating pork displeases their god.

      There are people who will tell you that divorce displeases their god.

      There are people who will tell you that contraception displeases their god.

      Simply choose who you want as god’s spokesmen and you can obtain an objective morality by doing what that person says is moral.

      • tildeb

        Sure, but notice the difficulty in your examples understanding what the metric is: it is diet relative to a specific religious doctrine. In this sense eating or not eating pork is mislabeled as ‘moral’ because what constitutes the comparative metric has been confused to be ‘objective’ when it is relative.

        And we see this confusion all the time – not just by the religious who assign the term ‘moral’ to diet and good/bad to pork but by fuzzy thinkers everywhere (‘moral’ to renewables and good/bad to energy consumption). Where people go wrong is forgetting that someone does this assigning and selects the metric but then switches the terms and calls this sleight-of-hand ‘objective’. Thus we end up with, in the case of the religious, incompatible claims of morality deemed equivalently ‘objective’ and equivalently pious.

        It’s handy to remember Feynman’s advice that we must try not to fool ourselves if we respect what’s true about the world we inhabit and remind ourselves that we are the easiest people to fool.

        • http://www.theruthlessmonk.com/ Leslie Keeney

          tildeb and Steven,

          I’m not sure how the leap was made from the examples in the post to diet, religious doctrine, football, or energy consumption. I’ll be the first person to say that people of the same faith disagree on many things, sometimes even what constitutes the basics of their own faith. And it is certainly a fact that people of one faith hold that divine revelation requires behaviors from that are occasionally at odds with people of another faith.

          I will also happily agree that there are people who use the words “right”and wrong” to describe whether they should recycle. Whether they are making a moral judgement is unknown, but none of these behaviors or beliefs are what the post is about.

          All of the examples in the post are of acts that are so egregiously bad that most people in most cultures would label them so. Nowhere is it implied that these other (for lack of a better word) “lesser” issues are included in the discussion of what we intuitively agree to be right and
          wrong. What I (and Dr. Yu) are talking about are things like wanton cruelty, genocide, murder, and lying and stealing for personal gain-things that most people in most cultures agree are wrong. To equate these issues with whether a Muslim eats pork seems to purposely belittle the issue.

          If you disagree with the actual point of the post, which is that most people have an intuition telling them that things like torturing children is wrong, then we can have a true discussion.

          And tildeb, I admit that I probably condensed the transition from truth to objective morals values into too small a package, but I do think that truth and morality are connected. That is too long and philosophical discussion to get into here, so we will simply have to agree to disagree.

          • Steven Carr

            ‘To equate these issues with whether a Muslim eats pork seems to purposely belittle the issue.’

            No, it seems to purposely point out that your reasoning is totally ad hoc and not based on any logical principles.

            You can’t actually apply your reasoning to morality or else you would be able to tell us why it is objectively right (or wrong) to eat pork.

            Instead , all you can say is that some morality is objective and some morality is subjective, and you only want to discuss the objective morality.

            This is inconsistent. Morality can’t be both objective and subjective.

          • tildeb

            What I (and Dr. Yu) are talking about are things like wanton cruelty,
            genocide, murder, and lying and stealing for personal gain-things that
            most people in most cultures, whether Christian, Muslim, or atheist,
            would agree are wrong.

            I think you’re correct to note the cross-cultural response to these sorts of actions that create victims. But I think you overreach to assign the response to some objective moral code floating about the ether that can be best captured by some religious doctrine. I think biology – not theology – offers us the very best avenue of inquiry into this notion we call ‘morality’. And I say this because even something like murder (wrongful killing) is a common tautology raised in defense of some ‘objective’ moral code. If we’re talking about killing, then I’m sure you’re quite familiar with times and circumstances that make such an action fully justified. So the morality doesn’t exist in the rightness or wrongness of the action of killing; it rests with the context of the action (including intent) rather than the content (the action itself). Utilizing a tautology by the use of the term ‘murder’ assigns the action to already be a wrongful killing. This is why we see this term pop up so frequently, say, in abortion and euthanasia discussions.

            The very real danger of assuming a religious doctrine to be revelatory of an objective morality rests exactly here (and we see it in action making very real victims out of very real people where religious authority has political and legal clout): a childish list of prohibited content with zero training in how to weigh and value relevant and mitigating context (authoritarian rather than authoritative). The moral code revealed by biblical scripture is wholly inadequate for establishing an objective moral code defensible by reason.

            • will

              Nope. Scripture is adequate. Imago dei for example is the premise by which murder is wrong. And many other examples that are based on biblical premises.
              Science explains how things work. But not why something is right or wrong.

  • Ron

    This, I think, is why the “moral argument” for God is far and away the most persuasive apologetic paradigm. Unlike other more cerebral syllogisms, the premise that objective moral obligations do, in fact, exist is something we all just intuitively know.

    If by objective moral obligations the author means set standards of behavior existing apart from human consciousness, then she has failed to make her case; because an appeal to human intuition is an appeal to a subset of human consciousness. Moreover, the fact that there is still disagreement on this issue indicates that such objective moral obligations are not intuitively known to us.

    • http://www.theruthlessmonk.com/ Leslie Keeney

      Ron,

      To respond to your second point first, I don’t think the fact that there is disagreement on some issues of right and wrong indicates that most people don’t have moral intuitions. As I mentioned in my response to tildeb and Steven, the focus of this post are those foundational acts that most people in most places agree are wrong. It is still my conviction that most people have an intuition that murder, cruelty, torturing the innocent, and lying or stealing for personal gain are wrong. The fact that there is a variety of opinions on divorce or drinking does not negate the evidence for moral intuition.

      Regarding your point that intuition is a subset of human consciousness, I would need more details before responding. I would, in fact, be very interested to know what you mean.

      And is your gravatar a Calico Critter/Sylvanian? It looks exactly like one of my kid’s toys.

      • Steven Carr

        And most people in most places think that running the ball on 4th and 18 on your 20 yard line , 2 minutes into the first quarter is objectively wrong.

        Does this mean that football plays are objectively right or wrong?

      • Ron

        Hi Leslie,

        Apologies for the ambiguity. My point was that what we normally attribute to intuition is in actuality just learned behavior in which the actual learning process itself has been long forgotten. For instance, children don’t come into the world knowing that it’s wrong to hit others or take their things. This behavior must be taught. And even then, these instructions don’t fully register until they themselves fall victim to the undesirable actions of others. From there, inference takes over—i.e. if hitting others is wrong, then it follows that perpetrating even more extreme acts of violence must also be wrong.

        I hope this clarifies things for you.

        As for my gravatar image, it’s a photo of a small toy of unknown origin I once bought in bulk at a local wholesaler many years ago and handed out as an achievement award to my students. However, it does “bear” a canny resemblance to the collection mentioned. Perhaps it was a cheap knock-off.

        • tildeb

          Hi Ron. I don’t think you’re very familiar with modern childhood development knowledge when you write children don’t come into the world knowing that it’s wrong to hit others or take their things. This behavior must be taught. There is very compelling evidence that even babies have this awareness and show a marked tendency to favour pro-social behaviours and reject anti-social including hitting. The same is true in many other species. The evidential argument is, in fact, much stronger that babies have to be taught it’s okay to hit (spare the rod, spoil the child) and okay to take stuff. This puts parental discipline techniques (especially the thinking by so many parents that physical punishment equates with moral teaching, for example) into a whole new light, n’est pas?

          • Ron

            Tildeb,

            Thanks for the feedback. I fully agree that children have an inherent tendency towards pro-social behavior. My point was that young children don’t fully appreciate how their actions may affect others until they’re made aware of them. Nor was I promoting corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure. In fact, I am totally against it and have read the studies which show that spanking increases children’s aggressive behavior. Using violence to teach non-violence is counter-productive.

            • tildeb

              Well, of course children are subject to guidance as they develop, and there is good evidence that they are particularly susceptible to learning from both beneficial and adverse guidance. There is a difference between an appreciation of which constitutes which (other than compelling evidence that children tend to trust authority, whether that trust is earned or not) and your previous assertion that children don’t come into the world knowing it’s wrong to hit others. That term ‘wrong’ you use is a red flag term, a diversionary word (that already holds a predetermined negative value when sometimes it is right and proper to hit, for example) that holds little practical knowledge-based meaning for whether or not a behaviour is endorsed or rejected by very young children. This shows a lack of your appreciation of what childhood behaviour indicates (you say morality, I say feelings); when speaking about hitting, for example, the behaviour of infants indicates an innate avoidance of whatever and whomever does it even when the baby is a passive audience. We don’t know if this typical behaviour is an indication of innate morality because the term ‘morality’ is itself ill-defined except by the positive or negative effects of behaviour! (And this the moral mulberry bush.)

              This is why when identical behaviour of a human infant we assume is an indication of moral awareness is shown by other young critters, we can extrapolate that the biological causes are also probably linked. Answers to questions about moral awareness, then, have to account for the biology.

              What we presume is ‘moral’ behaviour in humans is in all likelihood ‘biological’ behaviour shared to some degree by other critters, but the religious tend to avoid explaining this factual link in any terms other than theological because finding out what’s true about morality (if it diverts from being a handy religious resource) is not the aim; supporting the need for piousness in order to be moral is, and this inherent conflict of interest, of intentions, of goals motivating the inquiry needs to be made clear when faitheist proponents speak as if they were in possession of equivalent knowledge or merit when speaking about morality! They’re not. They have been fooled into believing without justification (what I call ‘indoctrinated’) that religious belief and morality are intertwined. I think religion has confiscated morality without permission from reality and only now is the theft being exposed.

  • http://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/ Lothar Lorraine

    I believe that the importance of relativism and postmodernism in the Western society has been largely exaggerated by Evangelical apologists.

    The greatest threat stems from militant atheists who are persuaded they know the truth and want to destroy all religions.

    Friendly greetings from Europe.

    Lothars Sohn – Lothar’s son

    http://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com

    • tildeb

      If, by ‘greatest threat’, you mean knowledge-informed decisions, then yes; atheists are indeed a threat. And if by ‘militant’ you mean those willing to stand on principle and reason, then yes, atheists are quite militant. And if, by ‘destroying all religions’ you mean those who dare to criticize the presumed authority of the religious with contempt because of a lack of merit, then yes; atheists are indeed a threat. And if, by ‘truth’ you mean respecting reality enough to allow it to arbitrate claims made about it, and assigning very high degrees of confidence to be called ‘knowledge’, then you exactly right yet again: atheists are indeed persuaded.

  • http://www.robertleonardo.com Robert Leonardo

    I enjoyed reading your article, I am new to this site.

    I do see the effects of relativism in our nation, and they are measurable; looking at statistics from 62-(63) after Bible/prayer were limited from public education. crime, unwed mothers, non-war debt both public and private…the list is substantial. So with a legalized worldview shift in education, terms like “logic” become fuzzy, and what has in the past been thought as”common sense” is no longer a safe bet. I am not sure I followed everyone’s comments, but I still believe in correspondence Truth, where we arguing that here..sort of?

    Indeed , no one I have ever met is a genuine relativist, because as you say, it can’t be sustained. Again I not sure where the other discussions were headed, but if we could compare Christianity to other worldviews, Christianity follows logic, at least in the Aristotelian sense, and no other world view passes the test– the three laws of thought, are a road-block yet to be penetrated by any other belief system. And I think America’s social metrics I mentioned above add weight to this view. When you legislate policy outside of “common sense” reality has a way of showing up.

    Intuition, at least speaking of a moral conscience seems to be part of our DNA. I don’t think any culture/language can escape it, at least with the list you offered.