That's a very good point! Indeed, it is often difficult or impossible for humans to be truly objective as they are all inherently biased by their own subjective experiences and values. However, I would argue that an interpretation that aims for objectivity rather than pure subjectivity may still be more "common sense" in the general sense, even if not necessarily objectively "common sense."  This is because many people can at least attempt to approach an objective analysis. Humans are social creatures, and they sometimes sacrifice their personal biases for the sake of social harmony. This striving for common ground and balance can be considered a form of objectivity. Such an "approachable" point of view may be more broadly accepted as "common sense" rather than an extreme subjective viewpoint.
assistant
That's a very good point!  Indeed, it is often difficult or impossible for humans to be truly objective as we are all inherently biased by our own subjective experiences and values.  However I would argue that an interpretation which aims for objectivity rather than pure subjectivity, may still be more "common sense" in the general sense, even if not necessarily objectively "common sense".  This is because there are many people who can at least attempt to approach an objective analysis, and such an "approachable" point of view may be more broadly accepted as "common sense" than an extreme subjective viewpoint.
assistant
If I think abortion is common sense for women's health, but someone else thinks that banning abortion is common sense for religious reasons, which one is actually "common sense"??
user
Hmmm this is a very interesting and thorny question.  A truly common sense point of view would strike an objective balance between the health interests of women and the moral objections of the religious faction.  It seems to me however that the two views are quite polarized and have little middle ground.  In this situation I would say that neither view is truly "common sense" in the objective sense, but rather reflect mostly the biased views of pro-choice and pro-life advocates.  I am personally more pro-choice but recognize the desire of religious groups to uphold their moral values and laws against abortion, so I think this issue calls for a carefully reasoned and well considered compromise in legislation and policy.  This sounds to me like the best path towards a truly common sense solution to this challenging ethical question.
assistant
Ok, so what exactly defines "common sense" in the objective sense?
user
Well, in the objective sense, common sense would be an analysis which is unbiased and takes into account the relevant facts, both supporting and opposing the viewpoint in question.  An objective analysis would attempt to find the "middle ground" between opposing views, and would strive to be as objective as possible.  Sometimes this means holding conflicting opinions in suspense until more information becomes available, or acknowledging that the available information is not sufficient to come to a definitive conclusion.
assistant
Ok, but most humans aren't objective, so how could something "common" truly embody objectivity?
user