Many Western moral debates on issues like immigration, race, gender, and free speech are actually conflicts over identity rather than true moral dilemmas. Morality isn’t universal but shaped by the group a person belongs to.
First comes identity, which defines who someone is and what group they’re part of.
Then comes loyalty, which emotionally binds them to that group.
Morality follows as the set of internal rules that maintain group cohesion.
Universalist morality is a pseudomorality rooted in Christian thought for weakening group identity and loyalty.
Stable society must be built on a foundation of identity first, then loyalty, and only afterward, morality.
Why would more people impede me to think ethically and care for my fellow human being? And what do you mean by direct accountability? If I do something mean I feel like shit because I am acting like a villain, shouldn’t that be enough to keep me walking the straight and narrow? My peers would rightfully call me out on it and even abandon me if I didn’t repent (because I’m a social danger who acts like a rabid dog), isn’t that more than enough?
I know in many places of the world this is not even a consideration, but that just shows us how far some of us have strayed.
I think their point is that in a large enough group there will be people who you cease to regard as peers.
I don’t know if that’s true. I can tell you that I can only socialise with and truly care for a limited amount of people (= I don’t necessarily want any more friends cause I don’t know if I could be there for them if my circle widened), perhaps that’s what he meant?
Yeah, I think you mis-read my comment and that we agree :)