Like Fukuyama’s “End of History” thesis, disproving Walzer’s universal-made-particular claim regarding morality seems difficult. Indeed, the quick example of the “Golden Rule,” an empathy-based dogma, finds itself in religions across the world. With my limited experience in this world, shaped by a firmly liberal, Western upbringing, I have a hard time speaking beyond my own perspective, but I would like to agree with Walzer’s claims regarding humanity. He claims that “humanity has members but no memory, and so it has no history and no culture,” and goes on to add, “the members of all the different societies, because they are human, can acknowledge each other’s different ways, respond to each other’s cries for help, learn from each other, and march (sometimes) in each other’s parades.” Again, I would love to believe that this is true or would one day be true, but it is too idealistic to have faith in. With a feeling of growing complexity in this world, it is hard to trust that empathy and a steadfast commitment to justice will prevail. With the dual tension of local conflict keeping many people preoccupied and global problems growing increasingly complex, responding to cries abroad seems unlikely (with the refugee crisis as a clear example). Indeed, it’s hard to argue that our thin morality offers us sufficient grounds to dive into problems that are often deeply shrouded in thick morality; can adequate faith in our thin morality convince us that we are solving others’ problems rather than worsening them? Certainly, it is difficult to be convinced by such arguments (along with Fukuyama’s and Ash’s) that focus on universal ideological convergence in an age where splintering feels never-ending as new battles continue to emerge. As such, perhaps my skepticism is solely related to my worries towards the world we live in; I would love to see an unimaginable surprise to dispel such doubts.