First post, and apologies for my possibly inadequate english!
I've found that human beings(myself included) have a difficulty of understanding very large quantities, and the amount of different individuals in societies is one example of this. Just like it is difficult for a person to imagine what 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 cars in a huge parking lot looks like, they still can, by using their logic, understand that it is just 1 car+1 car+ 1 car....etc. The same goes with individuals in a society. It seems to be impossible for many people to understand what a society consisting of 28 million(totally arbitrary number) individuals is, as it is really hard to instinctively notice what effects different actions have. If a person steals money from one of the 28 million, it isnt really that noticable for the rest of the population, and therefore people have these false morals as they refuse to use their brains when making conclusions about their morality and they start spouting shit like "there are no universal morals" and "its just a cultural thing" etc.
Therefore, i usually try and give them examples like this, so they can better understand it:
These arguments are very effective in at least to get the listener listening, and in some cases i have actually seen the person make big leaps in their thinking afterwards. I was just wondering, whether my simplifications have any weak points, so that i do not mistakenly teach people the wrong things. I have really found that going to the roots of things, and making simplifications(without changing the facts) is really effective, even in cases where the one youre talking to is a subjectivist weirdo that has never said a smart thing in their life. So, is there something wrong with these simplifications?