Margolis begins his essay by stating that those opposed to this view who believe that there can be only one true interpretation of a cultural work which excludes all other opposing interpretations, have never "shown why non-converging interpretations cannot be legitimately defended"(41). By dis

for the preservation of courts, jails, and the justice system in general. It would be impossible for everyone in an entire society to have the exact same ideas of what is right and what is wrong. Therefore, consensus is used based on the relative cognitive abilities and culture of each group. Actions can be taken against criminals whose crimes are considered crimes based on a societal consensus.

Margolis explains that his theory of cultural relativism including the interpretation of cultural entities can and does extend further than simply aesthetic criticism and into the natural sciences as well. Today we would not ask the question "How did the earth come into existence?" We would ask, "How could the earth have come into existence?" We use the facts we know today to make reasonable judgments about the origins of planet earth, however because we do not have perfect information we cannot look through the "eye of God" as such. We cannot possibly come to a definite conclusion about its origin. If we had evidence that absolutely disproved a certain theory of the origin of the planet, though, we could say with certainty that the earth did not come into existence in a specific way. This difference highlights an important distinction between truth and falsity. Falsity is the opposite of both truth and plausibility. We can make plausible statements concerning the origin of earth, that is statements which are not false because they do not contradict any given facts, however these statements are not necessarily true either, they only could be true.

cussing the concept of authorial intent (the intent of the creator of the work) he argues against the idea that cultural works are 'autonomous'. He explains that the intentions of a cultural creator are important if they are already actually expressed within the work itself. It is impossible, though, to have any authorial intentions exclude the possibility of an opposing interpretation because of the varying nature of the cultural matrix within which interpretation takes place. Furthermore, even if a definite authorial intention or meaning can be found within a work, it does not follow that this meaning (the author's interpretation of his own work) is the only valid one. A fixed authorial meaning does not exclude the possibility of other meanings and interpretations. Margolis's opponents agree somewhat with these statements because they believe that a work of art exists separately from the intent of the author and that authorial meaning is not necessarily the true meaning of a work. They differ from Margolis because they believe that another true meaning does exist. To distinguish his viewpoint from theirs, Margolis concludes that one cannot differentiate between what is inside or outside of a particular cultural entity or "work". The opponents claim that the true interpretation of a work comes from what is actually in the work, that the work itself is autonomous and that its meaning comes only from what is within the work, whether that is authorial meaning or not. Margolis claims that one cannot separate descriptions of what is in the cultural work, from interpretations that reach something out of the work.

Nor would exploring Margolis's relativism in the context of morality cause a moral anarchy. Margolis would explain that just because an idea has minimal rationality does not give it weight equal to that of other rational ideas. Recognizing the rationality behind the actions of a rapist does not mean giving his actions your support. Nor does it even imply taking no action of your own

Some common words found in the essay are:
Joseph Margolis, Starry Night, cultural relativism, true false, compatible using, relativistic judgments, robust cultural relativism, cultural objects, multivalent logic, interpretation cultural, robust cultural, necessarily true, logical contradictions, compatible using multivalent, , statements necessarily true, cultural relativism robust, multivalent logic bivalent,
Approximate Word count = 2412
Approximate Pages = 10 (250 words per page double spaced)