The fallacy may be adopted to defend an otherwise undefendable position. If a position cannot stand up to logic, then one can still maintain that the position is correct by asserting that logic is relative to a particular thinker or group, and that under some subjective logical standard (often unexamined) the position is correct. The relativist fallacy is generally not introduced by people whose arguments relative to objective matters stand up to logic to begin with.
The relativist fallacy was popularized in Western culture by Karl Marx who argued that different social classes have different logics, and that the arguments refuting his theories were merely bourgeois? logic, and as such could be dismissed without needing to be refuted.
In determining whether the relativist fallacy has been committed, one should distinguish between things which are true for a particular person, and things which are true about that person. Take, for example, the statement profferred by Jim, "More Americans than ever are overweight." One may introduce arguments for and against this proposition, based upon such things as standards of statistical analysis, the definition of "overweight," etc. It is a position which answers to objective logical debate. If Joe answers Jim, saying "That may be true for you, but it is not true for me," he has given an answer which is fallacious as well as being somewhat meaningless in the context of Jim's original statement.
Conversely, take the new statement by Jim, who is 5'6" tall, "270 lbs is grossly overweight." Joe, who is a foot taller at 6'6", and weighs an exact, well-conditioned 270 lbs, replies, "That may be true for you, but it is not true for me." In this context, Joe's reply is both meaningful and arguably accurate. As he is discussing something which is true about himself, he is not barred from making an argument which considers subjective facts, and so he does not commit the fallacy.
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)