I do believe that we have common rights and wrongs as a species. Even if you're the kind of person, as I am, who acknowledges every culture and refrains from the chorus of 'society'. Because every right or wrong has its own justification, and the very fact that there is justification suggests a common code or - rather - a series of common codes. Justification is the point of divergence from what the 'host' knows to be an established norm and their own actions and beliefs in reference to that norm. Justification is pervasive in every discourse.
If one person's wrong is another's right it does not mean that both are 'necessary' or 'harmonious' - it comes down to tolerance. And that tolerance is based upon the very commonality I have touched upon above. I would therefore say it is even more subtle than yin and yang, and also that we do have a way to measure the difference. GY isn't 'missing the bigger picture' he just has his 'belief' (that I share) which attempts a wider solution: instead of addressing each prejudice on its own, he believes in tackling all at the root he perceives. This is the very interconnectivity you establish is real, and we cannot deny outward perceptions. What we call it - whether we call it a belief or value - that is the redundant thing, just in the same way that creationists - for example - operate in response to science as a belief or value. But it also reaches a point where if you continue to follow this argument 'down the rabbit hole' and you leave back doors open at every turn and grey areas in the shadows then you leave yourself with no frame of reference at all, not even interconnectivity. So the philosopher, yes even the existentialists, will remind us of 'common sense' in this wake. There is no more destructive way to live alongside others than to be immersed in oneself alone.
What is 'common sense', how do we measure tolerance? The answers to these questions are many, but every single one will announce some form of difference and the fact that all do does not mean that the difference itself is not there - it simply means that it is elusive. And this, too, is one of the principles of Buddhism - a broad theosophy that is centred on the very simple tenet of common sentience. Which I believe is an apt way to end this post.
