MORAL RELATIVISM AND VALUE FRAGMENTATION IN THE DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE: THE SOCIAL REGULATORY POTENTIAL OF UNIVERSAL HUMAN CRITERIA
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/Keywords:
digital public sphere; moral relativism; value fragmentation; universal human criteria; algorithmic visibility; human dignity; digital regulation.Abstract
This article analyses moral relativism and value fragmentation in the digital public sphere. Conceptual comparison distinguishes diversity, group closure and normative justification. It proposes a model linking axiological, procedural and infrastructural mediation of universal human criteria. Their potential is explored through the interdependence of dignity, freedom and accountability. The model requires empirical testing.
References
1.Habermas J. Reflections and Hypotheses on a Further Structural Transformation of the Political Public Sphere // Theory, Culture & Society. — 2022. — Vol. 39, No. 4. — P. 145–171. — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764221112341
2.Susen S. A New Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere? With, against, and beyond Habermas // Society. — 2023. — Vol. 60. — P. 842–867. — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-023-00908-y
3.Wong D. B. Natural Moralities: A Defense of Pluralistic Relativism. — Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. — Chapter 2: Pluralistic Relativism. — P. 29–75. — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/0195305396.001.0001
4.Constitution of the Republic of Uzbekistan. — New edition adopted by referendum on April 30, 2023. — Articles 26, 31, and 33. — National Database of Legislation. — https://lex.uz/docs/-6445145
5.Hume D. A Treatise of Human Nature. — Book III, 1740. — Part I, Section I, Paragraph 27: T 3.1.1.27; SBN 469–470. — Hume Texts Online. — https://davidhume.org/texts/t/3/1/1
6.Milli S., Carroll M., Wang Y., Pandey S., Zhao S., Dragan A. D. Engagement, user satisfaction, and the amplification of divisive content on social media // PNAS Nexus. — 2025. — Vol. 4, No. 3. — pgaf062. — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf062
7.Nyhan B., Settle J., Thorson E., Wojcieszak M. et al. Like-minded sources on Facebook are prevalent but not polarizing // Nature. — 2023. — Vol. 620. — P. 137–144. — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06297-w
8.Gauthier G., Hodler R., Widmer P., Zhuravskaya E. The political effects of X’s feed algorithm // Nature. — 2026. — Vol. 652. — P. 416–423. — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10098-2
9.Brady W. J., McLoughlin K., Doan T. N., Crockett M. J. How social learning amplifies moral outrage expression in online social networks // Science Advances. — 2021. — Vol. 7, No. 33. — eabe5641. — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abe5641
10. Kant I. Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals / Translated by T. K. Abbott. — First published in 1785. — Section II. — Project Gutenberg, eBook No. 5682. — https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5682
11.UNESCO. Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. — 2 November 2001. — Articles 4–5. — https://www.unesco.org/en/legal-affairs/unesco-universal-declaration-cultural-diversity
12.UNESCO. Guidelines for the Governance of Digital Platforms: Safeguarding Freedom of Expression and Access to Information through a Multi-stakeholder Approach. — Paris: UNESCO, 2023. — Official document and information page: https://www.unesco.org/en/internet-trust/guidelines
13.United Nations. United Nations Global Principles for Information Integrity: Recommendations for Multi-stakeholder Action. — 2024. — https://www.un.org/en/information-integrity/global-principles
