Common Sense Philosophy/Chapter 1

Previous◀

Common Sense Philosophy

NextChapter 2 ▶

Chapter 1: Why Another Philosophy? -- The Failure of Existing Frameworks

1. A World That Knows Better

Begin with an honest look at the planet in the third decade of the twenty-first century. Humanity possesses more knowledge, more technological capacity, and more accumulated wealth than at any point in its history. We can sequence the genome, land robots on Mars, and connect billions of minds through a global network of light-speed communication. We have eradicated smallpox, mapped the ocean floor, and put a supercomputer in almost every pocket.

And yet. In 2023 the world spent an estimated 2.4 trillion U.S. dollars on military expenditure -- a record high. One in ten human beings lives on less than 2.15 dollars a day. In at least seventy countries it remains a criminal offense to love the wrong person. Hundreds of millions of women and girls are denied elementary control over their own bodies in the name of God, tradition, or some combination of the two. Authoritarian governments surveil, silence, and imprison their citizens with digital tools that would have made the Stasi weep with envy. And the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide continues to rise, year after year, as though the scientific consensus on climate change were an opinion column rather than a finding.

This is not a world that lacks information. It is a world that lacks a coherent framework for acting on the information it already has.

The purpose of this book is to provide one.

But before we can build, we must clear the ground. The landscape of human thought is littered with the ruins of frameworks that promised to guide civilization and failed -- sometimes merely disappointing, sometimes catastrophically. Religion, Marxism, neoliberalism, nationalism, postmodernism: each has had its moment of dominance; each has left wreckage in its wake. To understand why a new approach is necessary, we must be honest about why the old ones broke.

2. The Religious Gambit: Morality Outsourced to the Invisible

The oldest and most persistent attempt to provide humanity with a moral framework is religion. For most of recorded history, the overwhelming majority of human beings have derived their sense of right and wrong, their understanding of the cosmos, and their rules for social organization from some form of religious belief. It would be churlish not to acknowledge what religion has accomplished. The great religious traditions have inspired extraordinary works of art, architecture, literature, and music. They have motivated countless acts of individual kindness, charity, and self-sacrifice. They have provided consolation in suffering and meaning in the face of death. The hospitals, schools, and orphanages built by religious orders are real, and the comfort that prayer provides to the grieving is not to be dismissed.

But honesty requires that we also weigh the other side of the ledger.

Christianity, the religion that shaped Western civilization more than any other single force, has an empirical record that any honest accounting must call deeply troubling. The Crusades (1095--1291) killed an estimated one to three million people in the name of reclaiming the Holy Land for Christ. The Inquisitions -- Spanish, Roman, Portuguese -- tortured and executed thousands for the crime of believing the wrong things about the nature of God. The European Wars of Religion in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries devastated the continent; the Thirty Years' War alone killed roughly eight million people, approximately one-third of the population of the German-speaking lands. The Christian churches were complicit in the Atlantic slave trade, provided theological justification for colonialism, and -- as a matter of institutional policy rather than individual aberration -- systematically suppressed scientific knowledge from Galileo to Darwin and beyond. In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, the Catholic Church's institutional cover-up of the sexual abuse of children by priests has been documented in country after country, from Ireland to Australia to the United States, constituting what may be the largest organized concealment of child abuse in human history.

Islam presents a parallel case. A civilization that in its early centuries produced extraordinary achievements in mathematics, astronomy, medicine, philosophy, and architecture -- achievements that were instrumental to the European Renaissance -- has in significant parts of the contemporary world become associated with the violent suppression of dissent, the subjugation of women, the persecution of religious minorities, and the murder of apostates. To say this is not to endorse the crude "clash of civilizations" thesis or to suggest that Islam is uniquely violent -- Christianity's historical body count is, if anything, higher. It is simply to observe that a religion that prescribes death for leaving the faith, that in many of its contemporary institutional forms denies women the right to drive, to travel without male permission, or to choose their own clothing, and that in its most extreme manifestations produces movements like ISIS and the Taliban, cannot credibly claim to be a reliable guide to human flourishing.

Hinduism, for all the profundity of the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita, produced and sustained the caste system -- a hereditary hierarchy of human worth that condemned hundreds of millions of people to lives of degradation based solely on the circumstances of their birth, and that continues, despite legal prohibition, to shape Indian social reality. Buddhism, often romanticized in Western reception as the "peaceful religion," has its own record of complicity in violence, from the warrior monks of medieval Japan to the Buddhist nationalist movements that have fueled the persecution of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar and ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka.

The fundamental problem with religious morality is not that religious people are worse than others -- they are not -- but that religious frameworks claim authority from a source that is, by definition, beyond empirical verification. "God says so" is an argument that cannot be tested, falsified, or revised in light of evidence. When the empirical consequences of a moral rule are manifestly harmful -- when, for example, the prohibition of contraception leads to overpopulation, poverty, and the spread of HIV -- the religious framework has no internal mechanism for self-correction. The rule stands because its authority is not derived from its consequences but from its putative divine origin. This is not a strength. It is a structural defect that has cost millions of lives.

Moreover, the multiplication of religions, each claiming exclusive access to divine truth, creates an irresolvable epistemological problem. If the Christian God commands one thing and the Islamic God another, and if both claims rest on faith rather than evidence, there is no rational procedure for adjudicating between them. The historical result has been not peaceful coexistence but millennia of religious warfare, persecution, and mutual demonization.

None of this means that individual religious believers cannot be good, wise, or morally admirable people. Many are. It means that religion as an institutional framework for moral guidance is unreliable, because it is anchored in claims that cannot be verified and resistant to correction when its prescriptions produce suffering.

3. The Marxist Tragedy: From Liberation to the Gulag

If religion offered morality from above, Marxism offered it from below -- or so it claimed. Karl Marx's analysis of capitalism's exploitative dynamics contained genuine insights. The observation that economic power translates into political power, that the interests of capital and labor are structurally opposed, that ideologies often serve to legitimate existing distributions of privilege -- these remain valuable analytical tools. Marx's moral outrage at the conditions of nineteenth-century industrial workers was not misplaced; a glance at the factories of Manchester or the coal mines of Silesia confirms that.

The problem was not the diagnosis but the prescription, and not the prescription alone but its implementation. Marxism-Leninism, as actually practiced in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, North Korea, and elsewhere, produced some of the worst catastrophes in human history.

The Soviet experiment, begun in 1917 with genuine revolutionary idealism, degenerated within a decade into one of the most repressive police states the world had ever seen. Stalin's Great Purge (1936--1938) killed approximately 750,000 people by execution alone; the Gulag system consumed millions more. The Ukrainian Holodomor of 1932--1933, a politically engineered famine, killed an estimated 3.5 to 7.5 million people. The total death toll of the Soviet system, from its founding to its collapse, is a matter of scholarly debate, but even conservative estimates place it in the tens of millions.

Mao Zedong's China followed a parallel trajectory. The Great Leap Forward (1958--1962), an attempt to rapidly industrialize through collectivized agriculture and backyard steel production, triggered the worst famine in human history, killing an estimated 15 to 55 million people. The Cultural Revolution (1966--1976) destroyed lives, families, cultural treasures, and institutions on a scale that defies summary. Cambodia's Khmer Rouge, inspired by Maoist ideology, killed approximately 1.5 to 2 million people -- roughly a quarter of the country's population -- in less than four years.

The standard Marxist defense -- that these were "distortions" of the true doctrine, that "real communism has never been tried" -- is intellectually dishonest. When a theory is implemented dozens of times, on every continent, by people of vastly different cultures and temperaments, and produces catastrophic results every single time, the theory itself bears responsibility. The structural flaw of Marxism-Leninism is clear in retrospect: by concentrating all economic and political power in a single party-state apparatus, it created the conditions for tyranny with mathematical precision. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" was always going to become the dictatorship of the party leadership, because unchecked power does not check itself. This is not a contingent historical fact. It is a predictable consequence of institutional design.

Marx himself, it should be said, was a better critic than constructor. His analysis of capitalism's contradictions remains illuminating; his vision of what should replace it was vague, utopian, and fatally inattentive to the problem of power. The millions who died under regimes claiming his authority are not an aberration. They are the logical consequence of a framework that failed to take seriously the most basic lesson of political experience: that power must be divided, checked, and made accountable, or it will be abused.

4. The Neoliberal Mirage: Freedom for the Few

If Marxism's flaw was the concentration of power in the state, neoliberalism's flaw is the concentration of power in the market -- or more precisely, in the hands of those who dominate the market.

The neoliberal revolution, associated above all with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan in the 1980s but intellectually rooted in the work of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, began with a defensible insight: that markets, under the right conditions, allocate resources more efficiently than centralized planning. The collapse of the Soviet economy and the stagnation of command economies worldwide provided powerful empirical support for this claim. But defensible insights have a way of hardening into dogma, and neoliberalism made the journey from useful corrective to ideological fundamentalism in less than a generation.

The core neoliberal claim -- that the unfettered market, left to its own devices, will produce optimal outcomes for society as a whole -- is contradicted by the evidence on virtually every front. The forty-year experiment in deregulation, privatization, tax cuts for the wealthy, and the weakening of labor protections has produced the following results: the most extreme levels of economic inequality since the Gilded Age, with the richest one percent of humanity now owning more wealth than the bottom fifty percent combined; the systematic destruction of the social safety net in many Western countries; the financialization of the economy, producing periodic crises (2008 being merely the most spectacular) that destroy the livelihoods of millions while the architects of the crises are bailed out with public money; and the inability to address climate change, because the market externalizes environmental costs by design.

The neoliberal promise was freedom. What it delivered was freedom for capital and precarity for everyone else. The worker in the gig economy, with no job security, no health insurance, no pension, and no collective bargaining power, is technically "free" -- free to compete for scraps in a system designed to maximize returns for shareholders. This is not what most people mean by freedom.

The deeper intellectual failure of neoliberalism is its reduction of human beings to economic agents -- homo economicus, the rational maximizer of self-interest. This is not a description of human nature; it is a caricature. Human beings are social creatures who need security, belonging, meaning, and dignity at least as much as they need consumer choice. An economic system that provides abundance of goods but scarcity of meaning, community, and security is not a system optimized for human flourishing. It is a system optimized for profit.

5. The Nationalist Temptation: Us Against Them

Nationalism may be the most dangerous ideology of all, because it is the most intuitive. The feeling that one's own people, culture, language, and land are special -- that they deserve priority, protection, and, if necessary, defense by force -- runs deep in human psychology. It draws on genuine goods: the love of home, the comfort of shared culture, the solidarity of common experience. Unlike the abstractions of Marxism or the technocratic coldness of neoliberalism, nationalism speaks to the heart.

But it speaks to the worst parts of the heart as well as the best.

The nation-state system, consolidated in the nineteenth century and universalized in the twentieth, has been the organizational framework for the two most destructive wars in human history, killing an estimated 80 to 100 million people between 1914 and 1945. The logic is inherent in the system: if every nation has the right to its own state, and every state has the right to defend its interests by force, then the international order is by definition a system of competitive armed camps, each maximizing its own security at the expense of others. The "balance of power" -- the organizing principle of international relations since Westphalia -- is simply a euphemism for permanent low-level hostility punctuated by periodic orgies of mass killing.

Nationalism's moral logic is exclusionary by nature. The nation is defined by who belongs and, more importantly, by who does not. The "other" -- the foreigner, the immigrant, the ethnic minority, the religious outsider -- is always implicitly a threat, a contaminant, a diluter of national essence. This logic has produced ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, genocide in Rwanda, apartheid in South Africa, the persecution of Uyghurs in China, and the systematic mistreatment of migrants on virtually every border in the world.

The modern resurgence of nationalism -- from Trump's "America First" to Modi's Hindutva, from Orbán's Hungary to Erdogan's Turkey, from Putin's imperial revanchism to Xi Jinping's "Chinese Dream" -- demonstrates that nationalism has lost none of its appeal, despite its catastrophic track record. This should not surprise us. Nationalism offers something that more rational frameworks do not: a sense of identity, purpose, and belonging. The failure of cosmopolitan liberalism to provide these goods is one reason why nationalism keeps returning.

But a sense of belonging purchased at the cost of dehumanizing others is not a bargain. It is a trap.

6. The Postmodern Dissolution: Everything Is Relative, Nothing Matters

The final framework that demands examination is postmodernism -- or, more precisely, the cluster of intellectual tendencies associated with thinkers like Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Jean-François Lyotard, and Richard Rorty that became dominant in Western humanities departments from the 1980s onward.

Postmodernism began with genuine insights. The observation that knowledge is socially constructed, that power shapes discourse, that grand narratives can serve as instruments of domination, that the Enlightenment's claims to universal reason masked particular interests -- all of this was valuable corrective work. Foucault's analyses of how power operates through institutions -- prisons, hospitals, asylums, schools -- remain indispensable. Derrida's attention to the instability of meaning, while often maddening in its execution, pointed to real problems in the Western philosophical tradition.

But postmodernism's therapeutic insights curdled into a debilitating pathology. If all knowledge is socially constructed, then the knowledge that climate change is caused by human activity has no greater claim to truth than the assertion that it is a hoax. If all grand narratives are instruments of domination, then the narrative of human rights is no better than the narrative of white supremacy -- both are just "stories" told by particular groups to advance particular interests. If reason itself is merely a tool of Western hegemony, then there is no rational basis for criticizing anything at all.

This is where postmodernism arrived, and it is where it has remained: in a condition of intellectual paralysis disguised as sophistication. The postmodernist cannot say that female genital cutting is wrong, because "wrong" is a culturally contingent category. The postmodernist cannot say that democracy is preferable to dictatorship, because "preferable" presupposes a standard of evaluation that postmodernism has already deconstructed. The postmodernist cannot even say that postmodernism is true, because truth is precisely what postmodernism calls into question.

The practical consequences have been severe. In the academy, postmodernism produced a generation of scholars trained in critique but incapable of construction -- brilliant at showing why everything is problematic, hopeless at proposing anything better. In the broader culture, the postmodern dissolution of shared standards of truth contributed directly to the "post-truth" politics of the twenty-first century. If the left-leaning academy teaches that truth is a social construction, it should not be surprised when right-wing populists draw the same conclusion and invent their own "alternative facts."

The deepest failure of postmodernism is moral. In a world where real people suffer real harm -- where children starve, where dissidents are tortured, where women are denied autonomy over their own bodies -- the postmodern refusal to make evaluative judgments is not intellectual humility. It is moral abdication.

7. The Vacuum: Why Ideology Fails

We are left, then, with a vacuum. The old frameworks have failed, each in its own characteristic way:

• Religion offers moral certainty but anchors it in unverifiable claims, rendering it incapable of self-correction when its prescriptions produce suffering.
• Marxism correctly identifies economic exploitation but concentrates power in ways that produce tyranny with predictable regularity.
• Neoliberalism correctly identifies the efficiency of markets but ignores the human need for security, meaning, and dignity, producing inequality that degrades democratic institutions.
• Nationalism correctly identifies the human need for belonging but satisfies it through exclusion and enmity, producing violence with dreary predictability.
• Postmodernism correctly identifies the ways in which knowledge and power are entangled but dissolves the very possibility of rational evaluation, leaving us unable to say that anything is better or worse than anything else.

Each of these frameworks contains genuine insights. None of them works. And the interactions between them -- the oscillation from one failed framework to another, the way each defines itself against the others, the inability of any to provide a stable foundation -- constitute much of the intellectual chaos of our time.

8. Why Common Sense Has Been Uncommon

At this point a reasonable person might ask: if the failures are so obvious, why has no adequate alternative emerged? Why has "common sense" -- the capacity of ordinary reflective human beings to distinguish what produces flourishing from what produces suffering -- not simply prevailed?

The answer is that common sense has powerful enemies.

Institutional interests. Every failed framework sustains a class of people whose power, status, and livelihood depend on its continuation. The clergy, the party apparatus, the financial elite, the nationalist demagogue, the tenured theorist -- each has a material interest in maintaining the framework that justifies their position. Religions do not reform themselves, because reform threatens the authority of the priesthood. Markets do not regulate themselves, because regulation threatens the profits of the powerful. Nations do not dissolve their borders, because borders are the basis of the ruling class's power. Intellectual fashions do not yield to common sense, because common sense does not produce publications in peer-reviewed journals.

The manipulation of information. In every era, those who benefit from the status quo have invested enormous resources in controlling what people believe. The medieval church suppressed vernacular translations of the Bible. The Soviet state created an entire apparatus of censorship and propaganda. Modern corporations spend billions on advertising designed to manufacture desire. Authoritarian governments deploy sophisticated digital surveillance and content control. The common thread is the same: the deliberate distortion of information to prevent people from reaching the conclusions that an honest examination of the evidence would produce.

The psychology of belonging. Human beings are tribal creatures. We are wired by evolution to identify with groups, to trust in-group members, and to regard out-group members with suspicion. This psychological predisposition makes us vulnerable to ideologies that offer a sense of belonging -- religious, national, political, cultural -- even when those ideologies are manifestly irrational. The appeal of ideology is not primarily intellectual; it is emotional. We believe not because the evidence supports our beliefs but because our beliefs connect us to a community. Breaking with the community is psychologically costly, and most people, understandably, are not willing to pay the price.

The fear of simplicity. There is a peculiar intellectual prejudice, particularly strong in the academy, against ideas that seem too simple. If a moral insight can be stated in plain language and understood by an ordinary person, it is suspected of being simplistic, naive, or insufficiently nuanced. The result is that genuinely important ideas -- "unnecessary suffering is bad," "people should be free to live as they choose so long as they do not harm others," "power should be accountable" -- are dressed up in impenetrable jargon, qualified into meaninglessness, or dismissed as truisms. But a truism is not false because it is obvious. It is obvious because it is true.

9. The Case for Starting Fresh

This book proposes to start fresh -- not from divine revelation, not from historical materialism, not from market fundamentalism, not from national mythology, and not from the corrosive skepticism of postmodern theory, but from empirical observation of what actually produces human flourishing and what actually produces human suffering.

The method is straightforward. We look at the historical record. We examine which conditions, institutions, practices, and values are associated with lives of dignity, freedom, security, and meaning, and which are associated with violence, oppression, deprivation, and despair. We observe the patterns. And we draw conclusions.

This is not a novel method. It is the method of science, applied to the domain of values. And it yields results that are, in most cases, unsurprising -- which is precisely the point. The conclusions of this book will not shock anyone whose judgment has not been distorted by ideology. War is bad. Poverty is solvable. Freedom is better than tyranny. Education is better than ignorance. Cooperation is better than domination. Dignity is not negotiable.

These are not metaphysical axioms. They are empirical observations, supported by overwhelming evidence, available to any reflective person willing to look honestly at the human record. They are, in the precise sense of the term, common sense.

The question is whether we have the courage to take them seriously.

Thomas Paine, in 1776, published a pamphlet called Common Sense that argued for American independence from Britain. His argument was not complicated. He simply pointed out what was obvious: that it made no sense for a continent to be governed by an island, that hereditary monarchy was an absurd basis for political authority, and that the American colonies had the capacity and the right to govern themselves. These observations were, by the time Paine articulated them, widely shared. What Paine provided was not new information but the courage to state clearly what many already believed but few dared to say.

This book aspires to serve a similar function. The facts are available. The evidence is overwhelming. The conclusions are, for the most part, obvious. What has been lacking is not insight but nerve -- the willingness to say plainly that some ways of organizing human life are demonstrably better than others, and to name the obstacles that stand in the way.

The chapters that follow attempt to provide a rational framework for making such judgments -- not infallibly, not with metaphysical certainty, but with the honest confidence of an observer who has looked at the evidence and is willing to say what it shows.

Let us begin.

Previous◀

Common Sense Philosophy

NextChapter 2 ▶