I agree that one needs to do what one can to engage with others, to understand them as fully as possible, and to grasp that no person or group can be fully contained in cartoon-like simplifications.
At the same time, I would argue a principle danger we face is the eradication of the notion of relative truth. It is in my view a comforting falsehood to believe that all views and behavior patterns are equal, that all contain some fragment of that elusive chimera “Truth” with a capital T. One can admit many relative small t truths, and admit as well that they are confined to a time and place, but still retain this capacity for relative judgement.
As one obvious example, I read today that ISIS is beheading Christian children and sticking their heads on poles in a park somewhere, I believe Mosul.
Can we not all agree without serious discussion this is evil and wrong and that no coherent or defensible argument exists for this behavior within any civilized order?
Such judgments become much harder when we give up the right to judge in the abstract, and before any concrete, specific situation is on the table.
In my view, proper moral judgments are local, necessary, and understood as always imperfect. That does not, however, mean we should not make them. When necessary, we should ALWAYS make them. This statement I can generalize, because I put necessary in the definition. What constitutes necessary is another question. I would submit at least that when people are being harmed, and we have the ability to stop it, we have to at least make a decision.
That’s enough for now.