That this is not always the case, is a major concern for Brentano's theory of universal judgements.
According to Brentano all universal judgements (both (A) and (E)) are negative and therefore lack any existential import, whereas all particular judgements (both (I) and (O)) are positive and have such import.
This new symbolism e.g., the Boolean expression of universal affirmative judgements with "y = vx"—is only "an ineffectual indication of what we knew before" (Log, p. 276).
What distinguishes it from the first two is once again the neustic which will reflect that this judgement is a universal prescription to bring about P. This means that we cannot compute the logical compatibility or incompatibility of two judgements by noting the compatibility or incompatibility of their phrastics which we are treating as their contents.
It debars a singly-instanced properties such as space-hood from the status of genuine natural kind, perhaps motivated by the thought that the very nature of a universal consists in its grounding judgements of the form "x is of the same kind as y", which presuppose that there are at least two entities.
You can examine someone's genitals, their blood, their genes, their taste in movies, the length of their hair, and make a judgement, but none of these constitute a universal or objective test for sex, let alone for gender.
Rejecting Nozick as a model, Scruton stresses that "political understanding, as a form of practical judgement, does not readily translate itself into universal principles" (Scruton 1980: 36).
And because they come in all stripes, the only universal rule is to move past them and hold judgement until you see the whole picture.
With the words of its judgement – themselves a most significant form of action – the court sought to achieve just such a reasoned, universal appeal.
