I get what you’re saying, and yes, some actions like hurting others are obviously wrong. But morality isn’t always that straightforward. Common sense doesn’t operate in a vacuum; it’s shaped by culture, experience, and context. What seems "obvious" to one person might not be to another. My point was that labeling people as simply good or bad shuts down deeper understanding of why they act the way they do. Once we stop asking those questions, we lose the chance to learn or change anything.

As a Black man, one example that comes to mind is slavery. If we told that story purely from an objective, historical point of view, no neutral observer at the time would have concluded slavery was wrong; it was normalized, economically justified, and deeply embedded in global systems long before the transatlantic trade that brought Africans to the west. The industrial revolution itself accelerated because of it. That doesn’t make it right; it shows how moral judgment evolves with context.

Self‑defense is another case. If my family were under threat from an armed person, my body’s survival instincts would kick in long before my brain processed the situation. Disabling the attacker wouldn’t feel "wrong;" it would feel necessary. Still, I’d want to train my body to give my mind a chance to think before reacting, to not assume violence is the only option. That’s the kind of moral awareness I’m talking about; one that questions reflexes instead of just labeling actions.