Thank you, that is a good measure clearer. I understand that it may seem that I am trying to evade by asking for precise definitions, so I will attempt to demonstrate at least one aspect in which I cannot discern a clear meaning from the words. I present the following in all sincerity, and welcome correction of anything I misinterpreted:
When I usually think of the words “right” or “wrong,” there seems to be a purpose implied: “It’s right for that purpose.” I am also of course familiar with exchanges like, “Why is it wrong? It just is. It’s just wrong.” But I have never been clear on the exact intent of people who speak this way. In fact, they seem to have a variety of possible intents, depending on the speaker and the situation.
Now, when we speak of a normative statement (statement about what is right and what is wrong) being “logically objectively universally justified,” the words universal and objective both appear to imply that there is no purpose meant to be associated with the statement about right and wrong. If there is a purpose, specifying what that purpose is would make things much clearer. If there is no purpose, then I can’t comprehend the meaning, for the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph.
That is one reason I think the term “justified” is unclear, as is even “logically objectively universally justified,” with respect to normative statements. I hope it’s apparent that this is not just semantic nitpicking. I really don’t see what right and wrong mean unless there is a purpose behind them. Because of that, what it would really mean to “justify” something as being right or wrong escapes me.