I think it's always going to boil down to relativity and context. In some cases, it might be more right to do X first, in others Y.

The only reason I suggested that one should address their own issues before trying to fix others', was to avoid hypocrisy. For example, a parent trying to tell another parent how to raise their kids because the second parent's kid is bullying other kids at school, even though the first parent's children bully their younger siblings. If the first parent's children are bullies and they aren't doing anything about it, then they really have no place to talk. Or, say the US were to condemn China for its many infringements on human rights, when there are many documented cases of human rights violations within and sponsored by the US itself. That would just be pure hypocrisy.

But in both these situations, and I would guess most, I think the very best approach would be to try to solve both X and Y instead of just one at a time. But provided that there are only enough resources to tackle one at a time, I think it'd usually make the most sense to tackle the most local problem, and afterwards you'll be better suited to helping with the more broad problems.