'should' and 'ought' | Off-topic post removed from "Is taxation by big non-local governments non-consensual or consensua

[GE Morton]

Moderator's Note: The below post was removed from the topic "Is taxation by big non-local governments non-consensual or consensual?" as off-topic.

. . . but in any case I couldn't answer it because I don't believe in 'shoulds' or 'oughts'. I don't use the word 'should' and when others do my first guess it's meaningless or refers to something that doesn't exist (e.g. some kind of superstition or such).

Huh? The most common uses of "should" and "ought" are instrumental, as in, "If you wish to drive a nail, you ought to get a hammer." You "should" or "ought" to do X merely mean "Doing X is an effective way, or perhaps the best way, of accomplishing Y." Or, "You'll have a better chance of accomplishing Y if you do X." There is nothing Platonic or superstitious about such statements. They usually have determinable truth values.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

The most common uses of "should" and "ought" are instrumental, as in...

The most common globally or in a specific region?

Can you post the links to your sources for that statistic?

As the unnamed source you are citing for the statistic uses the phrase, what is really meant by "most common"? Is it over 50% of the time? Or is it merely the largest slice of a pie in a particular pie chart or such, but not a slice that exceed 50%?

In any case, the words are equivocal and are often used to mean other things. The use you suggest is just one of the many common meanings/usages of the very equivocal words.

[Pattern-chaser]

The most common uses of "should" and "ought" are instrumental, as in, "If you wish to drive a nail, you ought to get a hammer." You "should" or "ought" to do X merely mean "Doing X is an effective way, or perhaps the best way, of accomplishing Y." Or, "You'll have a better chance of accomplishing Y if you do X." There is nothing Platonic or superstitious about such statements. They usually have determinable truth values.

I don't think that the uses you describe are the "most common". On the contrary, if I say to you that you should do something, I am referring to some unnamed standard to which I feel you may not be adhering. Really, one is referring to that unnamed standard when one says "should" or "ought to". The subject of the discussion, although it is not obvious, is actually that 'standard'.

[GE Morton]

The most common uses of "should" and "ought" are instrumental, as in, "If you wish to drive a nail, you ought to get a hammer." You "should" or "ought" to do X merely mean "Doing X is an effective way, or perhaps the best way, of accomplishing Y." Or, "You'll have a better chance of accomplishing Y if you do X." There is nothing Platonic or superstitious about such statements. They usually have determinable truth values.

I don't think that the uses you describe are the "most common". On the contrary, if I say to you that you should do something, I am referring to some unnamed standard to which I feel you may not be adhering. Really, one is referring to that unnamed standard when one says "should" or "ought to". The subject of the discussion, although it is not obvious, is actually that 'standard'.

That is not really a rebuttal, since the "standard" is itself usually instrumental --- standard methods, standard treatments, standard practices, etc. "You have a headache? You ought to take a couple of aspirin."

[Pattern-chaser]

OK: I should (!) have said "moral standard". I was being lazy.

[GE Morton]

OK: I should (!) have said "moral standard". I was being lazy.

Doesn't matter --- as I've argued previously, the so-called "moral sense" of "ought" is also the instrumental sense. Moralities are sets of rules governing interactions between moral agents in a social setting. Those rules have a purpose, a goal. So "You ought not murder" just means, "Murdering is not compatible with, does not further, that goal." I.e., the rule is instrumental to the attainment of the goal.

[Pattern-chaser]

OK: I should (!) have said "moral standard". I was being lazy.

Doesn't matter --- as I've argued previously, the so-called "moral sense" of "ought" is also the instrumental sense. Moralities are sets of rules governing interactions between moral agents in a social setting. Those rules have a purpose, a goal. So "You ought not murder" just means, "Murdering is not compatible with, does not further, that goal." I.e., the rule is instrumental to the attainment of the goal.

That's all very well, but what about "you ought to agree with Kanye West", as opposed to "you ought not to murder"? The meaning is still moral — just! — but it's cultural too, and that is the context in which such 'oughts' are usually offered.

[LuckyR]

Several things. First, should and ought, though related are not used identically. Should is most commonly used when one wants to sound like they are giving advice but are actually demonstrating their preference. As in when a parent says to a child: "you should wear a coat to school, it's cold outside", or "you should do your homework". The message is actually "I want you to put on a coat" or "I want you to do your homework".

Ought, OTOH is more commonly used in the third person and more likely to actually be advice.

[GE Morton]

Several things. First, should and ought, though related are not used identically. Should is most commonly used when one wants to sound like they are giving advice but are actually demonstrating their preference. As in when a parent says to a child: "you should wear a coat to school, it's cold outside", or "you should do your homework". The message is actually "I want you to put on a coat" or "I want you to do your homework".

Ought, OTOH is more commonly used in the third person and more likely to actually be advice.

The terms can express both at once.

[Good_Egg]

...the so-called "moral sense" of "ought" is also the instrumental sense. Moralities are sets of rules governing interactions between moral agents in a social setting. Those rules have a purpose, a goal. So "You ought not murder" just means, "Murdering is not compatible with, does not further, that goal." I.e., the rule is instrumental to the attainment of the goal.

Only a mind can have a purpose, can formulate a goal and act to achieve or further it.

I don't see a problem with describing morality as a set of rules. But to say that such a rule-set has a purpose is to say that whoever makes the rules has a purpose in doing so.

Which makes sense if you conceive of moral rules as being instituted by God, or by the elders of your tribe acting deliberately.

But is problematic if you see moral rules as pre-existing in a Godless universe (an artefact of human nature that evolved as a by-product). Or as being a social consensus that somehow emerges in an undirected way from the decisions of individuals.

[GE Morton]

...the so-called "moral sense" of "ought" is also the instrumental sense. Moralities are sets of rules governing interactions between moral agents in a social setting. Those rules have a purpose, a goal. So "You ought not murder" just means, "Murdering is not compatible with, does not further, that goal." I.e., the rule is instrumental to the attainment of the goal.

Only a mind can have a purpose, can formulate a goal and act to achieve or further it.

Yes indeed.

I don't see a problem with describing morality as a set of rules. But to say that such a rule-set has a purpose is to say that whoever makes the rules has a purpose in doing so.

Certainly.

Which makes sense if you conceive of moral rules as being instituted by God, or by the elders of your tribe acting deliberately.

But is problematic if you see moral rules as pre-existing in a Godless universe (an artefact of human nature that evolved as a by-product). Or as being a social consensus that somehow emerges in an undirected way from the decisions of individuals.

Well, there are certainly no "pre-existing" rules. They're all made by humans (of course, I'm referring to Quine's "rules that guide," not "rules that fit"). But while there may be some moral rules that "emerge in an undirected way from a social consensus," those are not likely to be very sound rules. Good rules are those rationally justifiable and empirically testable as promoting a given goal.

[LuckyR]

Several things. First, should and ought, though related are not used identically. Should is most commonly used when one wants to sound like they are giving advice but are actually demonstrating their preference. As in when a parent says to a child: "you should wear a coat to school, it's cold outside", or "you should do your homework". The message is actually "I want you to put on a coat" or "I want you to do your homework".

Ought, OTOH is more commonly used in the third person and more likely to actually be advice.

The terms can express both at once.

Oh, of could they can, though in common usage, "should" does not.