Normality

I have seen you write in many discussions that the level of effort required to avoid a prohibition varies from society to society according to what is considered “reasonable human behavior” in that society. Do you think this definition is consistent and always applies? After all, in certain societies the level of effort is clearly lower than what the halakha sets in an unambiguous manner. In modern society, contemplating a foreign woman is not considered something that is at all attempted to be avoided (or at least not made any effort) and anyone who tries to avoid it even in a basic way would seem strange and delusional to the average Westerner. Should I not try at all in Western society? And what about refraining from enjoying idolatry? Isn’t it clear that “normal” Western behavior would be completely different if they had our prohibitions in the first place (or even a basic understanding of the concept of “mitzvot”) and it was “reasonable.”
From the very fact that it is agreed that there are prohibitions that I must avoid even at the cost of unreasonable behavior *in the eyes of modern man*, it seems impossible to say that the effort to avoid a prohibition is reasonable behavior in the society in which he lives with regard to avoiding that action. We must say that reasonable human behavior is first of all one that is inhumane regardless of the existence or non-existence of the prohibition in that society.
Is there such a thing? It is very difficult to define something like this based on observations, because human societies have arisen over the years based on rather bizarre laws and have managed to get along quite well. Even if a certain law has not existed in any human culture so far, that does not mean that it is not human – it just has not necessarily been tried. So far, the only a priori definition that “holds water” (trying my luck in the local jargon) for what is not considered reasonably human is based on the fact that man, by his very nature, is a creature designed to live in a human society by definition, and behavior that is not included in what can be maintained within the framework of a human society (if this behavior were a general law) is what the halakha does not require of you.
According to this, the halakha really does not require me to not speak at all in order not to speak slander, does not require me to walk with my eyes closed to the point of self-harm in order not to look at women (the definition in Yerushalmi for a foolish Hasid, in contrast to the Babylonian one where the example is based on a contradictory Torah command. Although here too it is theoretically possible to say that the contradictory command is a prohibition of self-harm. And Tza) because if everyone does this we will not be able to move forward anywhere.
On the other hand, it excludes quite a few things, because even completely ignoring a woman, let’s say (in a somewhat disgusting way) in order to avoid making small talk with her is something that would keep our society humane, and there were societies where it was even acceptable.