Dear Jean,

A very interesting topic. However, the whole thing depends on the way you look at such statements as data. I think in the mysterious realm of culture,  one should be cautious about cultural variations. Here, I would like to refer you to Anna Wierzbicka's beautiful article on anglocentricism/  ethnocentric ism explicating that a man's meat may be another man's poison. As an illustration, in your example, " Abortion is a crime" while it is considered  a crime in some cultures like mine, in other cultures (e.g. American culture),  it is not a crime at all, even though, its interpretation is certainly regarded as cultural knowledge.

Best regards,

R. Biria

Hello,

Thank for your answer.

I already studied Philippe Descola who is a french anthropologist, talking about various cosmologies (animism, naturalism, totemism and analogism) in "Par-delà Nature et Culture" (english translation should be "Beyond Nature and Culture). Based on his work, you could say that "universal knowledge" is really rare and most of what Westerners (naturalists) consider "universal knowledge" is in fact "cultural knowledge" to some extent: birds are not seen as animals in an animism cosmology. 

However, some knowledge is more or less contested and it could be a hint to evaluate its socio-cultural range. 

I will keep working on the subject. 

Have a nice day