Sentences of Factual Meaning

In any given case, sentences and statements have either context or detail. Other sentences, on the other hand, are displayed with no objective context or proposition. For example, the statement "stealing money is wrong" demonstrates the statement's finality without presenting a proposition about the statement's essence. The argument was made without any specific proposition in mind. This means that the statement's validity can be doubted, since it can be true or false (Solan 2010, p.327). Have no particular basis for the statement; it can be argued that the statement can be further subjected to criticism from either angle on the dispute that it can be true or false.
From the basic components of a sentence, a compound sentence is found to be true when the components of the sentence are true. If any of the parts of the sentence or the entire statement has a basis that brings doubt, the sentence can be confidently be categorized as true (Anastasakis, Bordbar, George & Ray 2007, p.436). For instance in the statement “Staling money is wrong” has various components that can still be brought up for discussion. There are no criteria given that states the wrong thing or the right thing from the statement. This leaves it open to discussion on whether stealing is wrong or its right. An argument can be placed to determine the nature of wrong or right in stealing based on the effects of the action done either to a person or group of people. Another factor left out is whether the doers of the action benefit from the action. With no proposition of the statement, it's hard to ascertain whether the statement is true or false.
The statement “Stealing is wrong has no factual meaning whatsoever. This means that there are no details or facts that back up the statement to make it measurable as either true or false. An inclination to either of the sides is a possibility to any given person who perceives the statement as either true or false (Fulcher & Davidson 2007). From a factual perspective, the statement needs to be backed up by details or facts which show the wrong in the act of stealing. This will then help in the determination of whether the statement is true or false. Facts given to the contrary indicating that stealing isn’t wrong will also bring the diverse conflict to the same stamen thereby making it.
In the determination of the truth of a statement, the word values come in handy. The sentence is broken down to determine the word values that constitute the given statement. This enables the person to view the details laid from the statement and determine whether it is true or false. By truth, some considerations are also put in. For instances, there are known norms and values among a given group of people or culture. This enables the people to interpret statements about the knowledge they have on the given topic. For instances, in societies that perceive stealing of money as a crime will take this statement as undebatable by basing their reason on the norms of the society. However, this same statement can lose meaning in cases where the society the people believes in survival of the fittest. In such cases, the people believe in doing whatever they can to survive. From this argument, it can be deduced that the validity of a statement is based on more than just the general meaning from a perspective of a given group of people. The diversity of the statement and the available angles of interpreting give every statement a basis that determines whether it is false or true (Anastasakis, Bordbar, George & Ray 2007,p.440).
As far as factual meaning factual meaning is concerned, a statement has more than one side. Scientific point of view states that a statement needs to be proven to be either right or wrong through experimentation. Therefore means should be created that would ensure a given statement is true or false, in philosophy, the basis of the validity of the statement lies in the details that are providing by the proposition of the statement. Most of the statements are however misunderstood based on various factors that don’t signify reason or facts. Still in the statement “stealing money is wrong” the various components of the statement are open for dispute. For instance, wrong or right in this statement has no basis. With no criteria for determination of a wrong or right doing, the claim that an acts wrong or right can still be subjected to critique. Stealing which is the main verb in the statement comes with a sense of wrongdoing. The term is associated with evil thereby it can easily be concluded that indeed stealing money is wrong. However, the intentions that the person had when stealing the money can also bring out a different bass of dispute on whether the statement is false or true.
Stealing can be a wrong thing to do, but can also be done for the right reasons (Caldwell 2010). For instances, in cases where a person steals money to buy medication for a family member, the act of stealing may be wrong but may save the life of a person. This, therefore, brings in the statement the ends justifies the means. From this statement, the statement “Stealing money is wrong” has no factual meaning if stealing on its part doesn’t display the conviction it has on a person that indeed it is a terrible act. On the contrary, as much as stealing can at times be associated with good if it meant for good, stealing on its part also harms a person or a group of people by denying them services they used or intended to use. This perspective gives stealing a wrong virtue in the society by all mean. From this perspective, the statement “Stealing money is wrong” becomes true if all the other arguments that dispute this statement are ignored. However, since they have to be taken into consideration, the primary argument remains the validly if the statement with all the various factors that have either no basis or factual evidence.
The same statement “Stealing money is wrong” gives the idea that stealing anything else may not be wrong. This brings out the idea that stealing on its entire not wrong unless its money that is being stolen. The statement excludes stealing of other things such as jewelry among others. This fact indicates that the statement on its own has more than one fault. It discredits stealing as a wrongdoing only when the substance being stolen is more. Technically, stealing anything is breaking the law whichever the item. However, this statement seems to contradict the virtue of stealing by the justification of anything else’s stolen apart from money. When the statement singled out stealing of money as a wrong doing, it discredited itself by an explanation of other forms of stealing such as food, jewelry and any other commodity that does not belong to them. This makes the statement to be false due to the diverse meanings that can be brought out after interpretations from different perspectives.
As mentioned above, the components of a statement determine the validity of the compound statement regarding factual meaning. In this cases, various facts contradict the nature of the statement “stealing money is wrong” the fact that the statement singles out money as the commodity that when stolen leads to wrongdoing makes the statement face more criticism. For instance, if the stamen was rephrased to go like “stealing is wrong” there would be a better chance to state that the sentence is correct due to the implication it has on the subject of the matters. The general term stealing counts for any action win which a person takes that which does not belong to them. This takes into consideration any commodity. This newly phrased sentence stands a better chance of determination of its validity regarding factual meaning. As much as it does not have details and facts that back it up, there are no variables that bring contradictions to the statement as is the case with the former statement (Becker, Fournet & Gordon 2010, p. 619).
From the analysis of the former statement breaks it down leading to the loss of meaning or determination of its validity. In most sentences, proof of contradiction or dispute of the statement automatically makes it wrong or false. After the conclusion that the statement has no factual meaning, it can be deduced that the statement the statement has more than one interpretation basing on the perspective of the person analyzing it. Having different meaning from the same statement makes it impossible to determine whether the statement is thru or false especially when the interpretations differ in meaning and views. The main argument, in this case, is whether a statement can be categorized as true or false based on the components of the statement. As much as the statement can be viewed as lacking factual meaning, there are other perspectives that differ with this argument. For instances, the Statement “stealing money is wrong” can also be viewed in the perspective that people need to look for their money. The society condemns stealing which makes the above statement in some way (schuklenk & Pacholczyk 2010).
Stealing being a known negative virtue gives this statement an upper hand in having the basis. There are various vices in the society that are based on old teachings as well as societal norms. All these factors included will automatically make stealing a known negative vice that justifies the validity of this statement. The fact that stealing is a bad act makes the statement open to the idea that indeed the statement is true. The facts in these cases are based on the known position of the society and the authority on matters related to stealing (Progoff 2013). Money runs the current society as opposed to the traditional settings. Therefore, stealing of money causes a direct conflict between the person who stole the money and the person stolen from. With this argument, the statement is therefore not infinitive altogether.

Conclusion

It can, therefore, be deduced that the statement “Stealing is money is wrong“ has no factual meaning because it does not have and details or facts that propose whether it is indeed true or false. Also, it has various interpretations from different perspectives that limit its reliability as a true or false statement as any of the perspectives gives an entirely different interpretation of the same statement. Consideration of other factors such as societal norms further adds to the prevailing doubts on the validity of the statement (Becker, Fournet & Gordon 2010, p. 619). This is explained in the breakdown of the sentences to mean that the aspect that makes stealing wrong is stealing money. This perspective views the statement as justification for stealing instead of condemning it.

Bibliography

Anastasakis, K., Bordbar, B., Georg, G. and Ray, I., 2007, September. UML2Alloy: A challenging model transformation. In International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (pp. 436-450). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Becker, M.Y., Fournet, C. and Gordon, A.D., 2010. SecPAL: Design and semantics of a decentralized authorization language. Journal of Computer Security, 18(4), pp.619-665.
Caldwell, B., 2010. Beyond positivism. Routledge.
Fulcher, G. and Davidson, F., 2007. Language testing and assessment. London, NY: Routledge.
Hurford, J.R., 2007. The origins of meaning: Language in the light of evolution (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.
Progoff, I., 2013. Jung's psychology and its social meaning: An introductory statement of CG Jung's psychological theories and a first interpretation of their significance for the social sciences (Vol. 27). Routledge.
Scheffler, I., 2010. Beyond the Letter: A Philosophical Inquiry Into Ambiguity, Vagueness and Methaphor in Language. Routledge.
Schüklenk, U. and Pacholczyk, A., 2010. Dignity's wooly uplift. Bioethics, 24(2), pp.ii-ii.
Searle, J., 2007. Freedom and neurobiology: Reflections on free will, language, and political power. Columbia University Press.
Solan, L.M., 2010. The language of judges. University of Chicago Press.