Cultural Relativism is Incoherent

Cultural Relativism is an incoherent ethic and epistemology. You see, there are cross cultural logic rules that apply in every culture. These rules are the basis for the natural law of Sheriff's Law, also known as the Law of Logic. You can prove, cross culturally, the validity of logic starting either with ideas, or with sense experience. Either you can say, in the abstract, that it is impossible for A and not A to exist in the same time and the same place in some ideal or hypothetical world, or, in the alternative, you can say that, in the concrete, it is impossible to have a physical (A)pple and no physical (A)pple in your left hand, at the same time in the same place in the material universe. Thus, both in the abstract, and in the concrete, we can see that it is factually and logically impossible for A and not A to exist, or be asserted, in the same time and the same place. Moreover, that which is logical is defined as that which does not involve a logical contradiction. In other words, as long as you do not assert that some statement or argument (A) pertains, and the same time in the same place that you are asserting that (not A) pertains, then you are making a logical statement or argument. Logical statements or arguments are permitted and are considered valid, while illogical or logically contradictory arguments are not permitted and are not considered valid. Given the foregoing, there a number logical fallacies which cannot be permitted, and which are invalid. These logical fallacies include: 1. The fallacy of appealing to an authority; 2. The fallacy of hypocrisy;
3. The fallacy of shifting ground; 4. The fallacy of appealing to conventional morality;
5. The fallacy of appealing to the mob; 6. The fallacy of asserting the validity of the precedent by affirming the consequent; 7. The fallacy of deriving a conjunction from a disjunction;
8. The fallacy of lying; and the fallacy; and the fallacy of making a personal or ad hominem attack. Accordingly, we can say that while the idea of cultural relativism is incoherent, the idea of moderate relativism is not. Moderate relativism allows for a reasonable range of statements or argumentation which do not involve logical fallacies or sophistry. Finally, another reason that logic, logical reasoning, and logical principles are cross culturally valid, is that you can teach the typical 5 year old in any culture, the use and principles of logic in about one hour. Thus, it is possible for any person to engage in deconstruction activities using logic.

(C)Perpetual Copyright 2011 by Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Coif, and Neothomism, P.C. (PA)