Link back to commentHi Andrew, and thanks for putting your thoughts pertaining to the particular conundrum of universal humanism up for discussion.
My first reaction after skimming over your article initially, and sustained after more careful reading, is that, like many other of our contemporaries, and including the philosophers you cite, you may have found yourself trapped in what I believe to be a false dilemma that can be resolved through more careful reflection at the next higher (or deeper) level.
For example, the notion that we all belong to identifiable groups which to greater or lesser extent command our loyalties does not in my view negate the notion that underneath we are all human, and as such owe certain loyalties to all our fellow members of the human species - though as someone who makes the occasional feeble attempt to be genuinely guided by this maxim I do appreciate that it does tend to set me apart from whatever particular in-group I may consider myself part of from time to time. And, yes, taken to any significant degree of seriousness beyond glib Sunday oratory platitude, this attitude does mandate the occasional inconvenient behavioural standard, of the "Chacun est seul responsable de tous" variety famously expounded by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. I can also see how, taken neat, this attitude can lead, and throughout history has led, to the kind of insanity you call out.
The key to avoiding full-blown insanity, so I believe, lies in accepting that firstly one oneself does not actually know everything, and may in fact be mistaken in some of one's own ideas and conclusions, and that secondly, a right to make one's own mistakes, and learn from them is an integral part and parcel of everyone else's universal humanity.
Thus, in quieter and more reflective moments, I do let the horror of a father in war-torn Yemen having to watch his child die of hunger hit home: what would it be like if I had to watch my own daughter die like that? It is a decidedly uncomfortable thing to do - but failing to do so would amount to denying our shared humanity, and I would consequently not know how to claim it back.
Of course there is exactly sweet fuck-all I personally can do about the situation in Yemen. The question therefore narrows down to "What do I have to do to manoeuvre myself into a position where I could do something (constructive!) about the situation in Yemen?" Of course, the answer to this question depends in large part on what it is I think ought to be done about it, whether by myself, or anyone else - I have to take a serious stab at trying to assume the position of "ideal and impartial observer". From that position, a few things should become obvious: the people best able to improve the situation in Yemen are the Yemenis themselves; the people most interfering with Yemenis' capacity to improve their situation are the Saudis, the people closest to me lending support to the Saudis are the Americans, and the closest people most capable to influence the Americans are the Australian government - so I might have to lean on ScoMo et al to do something, or failing that, see to it that, say, Bill Shorten and his crew replace the incumbent mob. And even that, realistically speaking, is quite beyond my ken. The best I can do is perhaps help former politicians in the Blackheath Philosophy Forum and their associates to break down what seems an insurmountable problem that must be ignored to the best of our ability, into many, many tiny little steps, so as to make a better future for all humans a realistically achievable endeavour.