Link back to comment

Thank you Arnd for another thoughtful and interesting reply,

You bring up the entirely correct point that believing that we either only think in group membership or only in shared humanity is a false dilemma. And I agree completely. However, this is not what I intended to argue. My argument was that appealing to group membership is fundamentally at odds with universal humanism is incorrect (as you can see in earlier comments Peter has corrected me on his universal humanism understanding, which does allow group membership). For instance, in my conclusion I wrote:

if one wants to hold a universal humanist point of view, it must include our capacity for special
relationships through group membership, therefore it is the denial that these can coexist that
leads to insane conclusions if this is how universal humanism is to be understood.

I understand how my intentions have been interpreted as to deny universal humanism, especially given the title (as you have probably noticed I do have preference for a provacative title lol). As you illuminate with your examples, I can coherently care more about my own backyard, whilst feeling compassion for those on the other side of the world and seriously do what I can to help them, by as you said, appealing to shared humanity (This is something also believed by Williams).

Thanks again Arnd, and Merry Christmas,

Andrew.