I don't believe that there is wide agreement among contemporary philosophers on the answer to your question. The layperson's position you describe above sounds like logical realism. Logical realism states that there are facts of logic, and these facts are completely independent of us (our minds and our language). If humans had never existed, the law of non-contradiction, excluded middle, identity, De Morgan's theorems, etc. would still be true. Logic is not relative to us humans and our pragmatic purposes; there is "one true logic", and it is so because it describes in the most general way the subject matter of logic in the same way that a scientific realist might say there is "one true theory of everything", because it describes its subject matter (the physical world) in the most general way.
One problem about logical realism is trying to say exactly what logic's subject matter is. Particle physics is about fundamental particles, biology is about living organisms. Logic, as conceived by the realist is about propositions, facts, states of affairs, or some other very general feature of the world. These are controversial entities that are difficult to make sense of in a materialist ontology, so that if materialism is probably true, logical realism is probably false. How compelling this objection is depends on how compelling one finds materialism in the first place.
A second difficulty with logical realism is an epistemological one. Knowledge of logic doesn't seem to be like any other kind of knowledge about the world. Most knowledge about the external world is got at through experience, through theorizing, predicting, testing, and revising our theories. How does knowledge about logic, the most general principles of reality come so easy, while scientific knowledge about the same world comes so tough? Logical realists owe us an epistemological theory that explains this. (This paper sounds like it might discuss this objection, but it's behind a paywall so I cannot say for sure.)
An alternative to logical realism is anti-realism. Anti-realists conceive of the world like an amorphous blob, without any knowable structure. We carve up the amorphous blob-world filtered through our cognitive faculties, using our conceptual schemes and theories. This process of carving up the world is relative to our interests and so there isn't one true way of going about it. What gives logic the "feel" of universality and generality is that it's about the very tools we're using to do the carving. It's about our logical vocabulary; the words "all", "some", "not", "and", "or", "if-then, if-and-only-if", "is-identical-with", etc., are the subject matter of logic, and certain sentences are tautologies and certain arguments are valid because of how we define our logical vocabulary. But the logical vocabulary does not carve the world at its joints, and logic is found in our words, not in the extra-linguistic world. I believe anti-realists also usually endorse the idea that logic is revisable. If a definition (a truth table, for example, in the case of a connective) of some logical term is more appropriate or convenient for some purpose, then we should adopt it instead of the "classical" definition; there is no "one true logic".
This question asks for resources on the realist vs. anti-realist debate for logic. Check out the answer and comments if you want resources to read further!