In page names, the word for is limited by living ontology to uses described in OP:for.

The term "for" is often abused to suggest or imply that an object of a sentence is really a subject, worthy of having rights or some consideration simply for being.

As with any preposition, e.g. term:by, term:as, term:in, term:on, there are extreme risks of validating an unwise conceptual metaphor in improper use.

degrading the living subject

Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative was that human beings must be considered ends, never means, of any ethical action.

To abuse for, then, as in a phrase like "open market for ideas", is to imply that the entity ("the market") exists for the "ideas", not for the participants, and most particularly not for those affected by the actions of those participants (the victims of their decision making). This is the exact opposite of ethical decision.

Similarly, to say that something is "for journalists" is to imply that it serves their purposes, and not the purposes of those who rely on them. Accordingly openpolitics.ca itself and the Living Ontology Web prefers the usage "as journalist."

A more utilitarian view is that of Richard Reiner, who said: "what it does is what it's for". In this sense doing is what the preposition must describe, not "being".If Reiner is literally right, then any sentence including "for" entirely lacks a subject.


The use of issue/position/argument for open politics argument is thought to avoid some of the inherent problems with the word for simply by requiring positions about what should be done to be teased out from the issue statement or the "arguments for" the position.