Yes, one does wonder how you’re writing if you don’t own yourself.
But it is so defined; logically objectively universally justified. Now we’ll have no more of your evasions.
Would you agree, then, that my Writing Ethics proof is better than (or at least as good as) the Argumentation Ethics’ proof? Wait till you hear my Singing Ethics proof.
Z.
I think you’re not grasping that writing, talking, and singing are all subsumed in a larger concept.
…or, perhaps, you are trying to refute my Writing Ethics proof? It would help my grasp better if you decided between the two.
Z.
Maybe his owner allowed him or even ordered to write. Or he could be violating his ownership, trespassing on his property for all we know.
AJ,
thanks for dialoguing and proving AE. yet again.
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.
AJ,
thanks for dialoguing, again, and proving AE.
No, you’re just not grasping that writing, talking, and singing are all subsumed in a larger concept.
But who ultimately controls the pen/pencil/keyboard? You’re confusing proximate with ultimate.
All of them.
Who cares? The issue is the right to control, also known as ownership.
Using what authority ?
What ownership ?
What, trespassing ? And this property, it is ‘his’, How ?
Juan,
lol[:)]
Sorry AJ, I don’t see how that link helps. So, given that you can’t define the terms (and concepts) you are using in your rants, I’m afraid you have so far proven nothing. Well, good luck next time.
Seriously though, you don’t really understand the objections to your crass logical positivism or are you just ‘arguing’ in bad faith ?
good dialoguing again there AJ. thanks for proving AE.
His ownership.
Property right. The right to control and exclusive use.
Call it unauthorized use of property then.
Maybe he bought him, or received as a gift. Use your imagination.
thanks for dialoguing scineram and proving AE again.
and even if it is not you dialoguing, it’s a dialogue speaking through you, in possession of you, and still a dialogue none-the-less. thanks for proving AE.