all arise from inaccurate models of the minds of others
Were humans not capable of and in the habit of treating assumptions as axioms, we could not function nor develop beyond an infantile inquisitive state, as we rely on inductive learning to link the symbols through which we interpret reality - so one can only work with this particular axiom (or assumption? Hah.) to effect change.
The Internet is damoclean in nature - at first flush it presents a divisive frontier of information, which leads to the behaviours we see today - but prolonged exposure could result in a general improvement in the models individuals and cultures carry, assuming auto-innoculation doesn't happen too quickly. It'll be interesting to watch pan out.
prolonged exposure could result in a general improvement
Progress doesn't always look like progress at the time. In fact, it rarely does - what we usually see and call progress is actually entrenchment.
And cultural relativism is a marvelous excuse for the evil of man.
Cultural absolutism: us good, them evil.
Cultural relativism: under these social circumstances, those moral preferences are likely to emerge.
Clearly, the former is easier to handle than the latter, which has advantages in some situations.
>Cultural relativism: under these social circumstances, those moral preferences are likely to emerge.
This strikes me as the fallacy of the excluded middle.
Many people believe one culture is better than another without necessarily believing one is entirely good/without fault and the other is entirely bad.
The problem with cultural relativism as I understand it is that it denies me the right to make any judgement. I mean, you phrased as opposing "they're bad" but in practice it opposes "they're worse"
fallacy of the excluded middle.
it denies me the right to make any judgement.
Issues arise when this projected individual differs substantially to the actual. On a one to one face to face basis, one typically rapidly readjusts one's model of another rapidly, as it's free floating and has no broader corpus to fall back on. This varies when you deal with someone famous (large corpus, many precepts) or intimate (seemingly large corpus, actually selection bias and neurosis), and the model usually becomes less accurate.
Where it gets interesting is herd interactions, either on or offline. Lynch mobs, trial by media, witch burning, Internet hate machine, war - all arise from inaccurate models of the minds of others, which are reinforced through perceived (abiline!) collective consensus.
Long story short, there's no good and evil, most narrative is self constructed, this is as old as man.