Without which, you're talking nonsense
A friend of mine mentioned Pythagoras recently - as a very powerful very early example of someone who was trying to extrapolate philosophical rigour, from mathematical clarity and principles. Better still, he didn't just sit around thinking about stuff, like some nervous academic, he and his followers actually endeavoured to live out their philosophy as a small society of consensus sanity, within the far more chaotic Greek culture at large. (musicians also owe Pythagoras a debt, for the theory of vibrating strings)
Just as I turn to Sufi wisdom for rare strength in adversity, in part because it found ways to transcend one of the greatest cultural disasters of ancient times (the Mongol invasions), I find myself in increasing sympathy with Pythagoras in the recent chaos - most especially when it comes to holding ourselves to rigorous moral reasoning, rather than misusing that family of ideas to feel better, by creating comforting self-delusion.
Mind you - though I do use strong ideas against the natural tendency to want to explain myself (to myself) as a hero - and to keep my ideation less in my head and more in the world (always more difficult, because real-er), my other key anchor is no less clear - compassion. Outright love for others, even strangers, on principle.
I don't get there with religion (though I'm pleased to recognize that some still do) - for me, it's even simpler - strangers saved my life - so post-tribalism (that is, we all of us make-it together as a family, or none of us will) doesn't need any special explanation or justification to me, it's obvious morality presents as my clear duty - nothing less. Proper gratitude for what brought me - the whole, and not just half the kaboodle!
Thing is, there's almost nothing you can say now, which doesn't come along with a whole ton of baggage brought in from outside. Opinions strike many not as crafted arguments toward consensus truth and clarity, but as weapons wielded in (imaginary) 'territory' - if the Hatfields enjoy ice cream, then as a McCoy, it's my duty to find ice-cream immoral. The word for this nonsense is childish. It's also no way to get anything done.
The single best way to discard all tribalist thinking permanently, all at once - is to renounce its (admittedly addictive) benefits - by morally embracing an incredibly useful concept from law - joint and several liability.
We don't usually think in these terms, so I'll explain. In a situation of joint and several liability, each and every signatory to an agreement, bears one hundred percent responsibility for it's consequences. You might think that if you were one of ten partners, and the other nine finked-out, you'd only be on the hook for ten percent - but no - joint and several says no matter what - somebody is going to make this thing good, and if there's only one of you left to find - then all of it is on you!
Wait though - we aren't actually responsible for so much of what happens, even in our own personal lives - let far alone for the great forces operating around us.
This is a common and true observation - and when used compassionately (to combat driving ourselves mad with work, or judging ourselves unfit, because of harsh macro-economic conditions) it's very helpful - but it doesn't address real and serious concerns. There are no 'adults' out there, to whom we can whine, to fix things - we actually have to DO it! Have-to as in imperative - or else ruin the world.
I'll give you my simplest example - I'm not a vegetarian (though I do understand the numbers-derived position very well, and applaud it), but there are quite a few modern things which I stay away from, because I don't like how they are made, or who would (and wouldn't) get paid and or hurt along the way.
Do I think that personal restraint gives me moral high-ground? Nope - because I believe in joint and several - right down to my core. The economy around me derives huge distributed benefit from mining operations which I object to - my objection weighs nothing - anywhere except inside my own head - whereas my benefit in the world is real and inarguable, even if it is, by my own actions, less-than it is for many others. Simply calling them out, cannot possibly by-itself make me a good guy - changes nothing whatsoever but the noise-volume in the room.
I am absolutely 'in' for a solid share of the grand societal costs and sins, until I've figured out a way to convince everyone around me to accept and agree that we'd all be happier doing things in a fundamentally non-suicidal way for a change.
No exaggeration there, by the way - our current blind consumerist 'always worked before' course, is heading us directly toward extinction at ever greater speed, so the responsibility we find, when we stop feuding and whining, isn't trivial.
I would like to suggest to my friends that 'joint and several' is a good basic test for all sorts of political people and ideas - left and right both - to help us separate those who are serious about making principled improvements in the world, from those who are just enjoying themselves while spouting shite. Anyone who thinks they get to be a hero, just because they say something that they don't like is stinky - even though they continue to exist in the context it benefits, is taking a childish position which has no relation to responsibility, gratitude or reality. Waste of time to even engage.
However it may seem - this sanctimonious pose is not EVER my position - I don't seek cheap ego-elevation. Rather I am with and of the lowest of the low, only ever and always (and I do not find myself lacking for good and even holy company down here). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯