I think a consilient approach with biology might shed some interesting light here, though it may be beyond the scope of 1,000 words. Are there things about our biology that push us towards particularist or universalist thinking in certain contexts? Is there a set of biological particularist needs we can find a way to satisfy while simultaneously seeking to serve universalist ethical goals?

I think this line here - The takeaway of this discussion is that we should stop thinking the right thing to do is find the cause in the world that is the most objectively unjust and do our best to fix it.

makes the point well that a left-brained approach to analyzing justice and conducting cost-benefit analysis to determine the "best" way to deal with it is perhaps not something human beings are good at, perhaps for biological reasons. Some things get people more fired up than others. There usually seems to be more motivation to fight for one's own freedom than for the freedom of those far away.

However, I think this line - Instead, we should identify our communities and do our best to prevent injustice in them.

simply begs the questions which begin the essay: what is our community, and what is justice? These two questions I think could bear some further inquiry. I think there's implicit in the line the idea that the community you're talking about is on the scale of the family or the neighborhood in which one lives. If you want to pursue that line, you might make that more explicit. Why do smaller groups inspire more committed attachment and willingness to sacrifice? The question of what is justice would also still remain.

-- DevinMcDougall - 06 Apr 2010