II. Limited Egalitarianism. Equality of rights, not outcomes. This is not a call for socialism, but one for even handed treatment of ourselves, and others. Not a broad and unconditional imperative - one recognises that a mother will favor her child above others, as she should, for example. But, rather, a recognition that noone occupies a privileged position with respect to the moral structure of existence, and that custom should reflect this fact. If I should make my children my first priority, I shall not feel it an outrage when another does so for his children, nor shall I accept any attempt to pressure him into refraining from doing so.
Loyalty to one who one has a bond with, is an expression of a personal duty, not a specific duty binding on all. The universal value is not the special concern one, personally, shows to a specific person, that is merely an expression of the universal value of loyalty, which one expects others to manifest according to their obligations, and not one's own.
Now, if we are to have equitable relationships, we can't hope to establish them in a warlike atmosphere. History teaches us that when one dominates another, the subordinated one's interests get short shrift, even if the dominant one attempts to be "benevolent". It is too easy to rationalise one's own desires, especially if one never hears the voices of those who would say "no" to one. Further, confrontation, if it results in victory for one, must end in defeat for another, and for one to abase himself before another, is to introduce an unequal relationship between the victor and the vanquished.
This is not to say that passion is to play no role in discussion. The very recognition of what it is for a thing to be for good or ill, is a reflection of an understanding of our own passions, and those of others. To forbid its mention, is to abandon morality itself, or to reduce it to a set of arbitrary rules, supported by nothing more than convention. It is, however, to say that we will make a conscious attempt to avoid allowing it to intimidate others into not offering or considering opposition to our positions - so long as it seems that those others are making a conscious effort to treat us fairly, and to be reasonable. Which brings up the next expectation to be held of those who would join any philosophical discussion, or any group, that a reasonable man would wish to be a participant in.
Options ...