Moral Imperatives

We don't use them this way very much anymore, but there is actually a difference between "ought" and "should". According to the dictionary, "ought" is defined as an expression of duty or moral obligation. In fact, "ought" can be a noun that means "duty or obligation". Now, to be real, "should" is generally a synonym for "ought", but technically there is a distinction. We typically use the two interchangeably, but the sense of "should" is less imperative. It is more advisory. So, while we might say, "You should love your spouse" and "You should get your flu shot", it might be more technically precise to say "You ought to love your spouse" and "You should get your flu shot." "Ought", then, is closer to "have to" than "should".

This concept of moral obligation is a given in the realm of humans. (I'm not so sure animals, on the other hand, have any sense of moral obligation.) To tell myself, "I should do the dishes" is a recommendation, but to say, "I ought to do the dishes so my wife doesn't have to" moves to moral obligation.

And we have no real problem with the idea of me imposing moral obligations on myself. Well, to a degree. I mean, if your moral obligations affect my choices, well, then, that's another thing entirely. No one cares if I say, "I really ought to read my Bible more often." "That's fine ... for you." But if owners of a bed and breakfast, for instance, believed that they ought not to rent rooms to unmarried couples, well, that won't do. That won't do at all. Now their view of what they ought to do is impacting unmarried couples!

It, of course, gets far worse when you try to move it from "I ought" to "You ought". I can certainly have convictions with which to tell myself what I am morally obliged to do, but suggesting that there is any such right to impose such convictions on others is not acceptable today. It boils down to a really basic question. Are there objective grounds for morality? If there are objective grounds, then it is not I who am imposing convictions on others; it is the objective grounds for morality. But if not, then we'll just have to keep our moral responsibilities to ourselves.

Here's the problem. While much of today's society is of the opinion that imposing moral obligations on people is bad, we do it all the time. They're called "laws", and we concur with "thou shalt not murder" and "thou shalt not steal", for instance. We generally agree that we all have moral obligations to care for our children, to help people in need, to protect the defenseless, that sort of thing. Even the people that aren't doing it agree that it's right (generally). These are "ought to's". So if we're going to say that moral responsibilities are an individual thing and "You don't have the right to tell me what I ought to do", then we're going to need to eliminate all those pesky laws. If, on the other hand, we can agree that there are indeed universal imperatives, then you may have to listen when someone suggests "you ought to" as a moral obligation. In that case, it may just be that you are failing to meet a genuine moral imperative. And if they exist, it's not in your best interest to fail to meet such things. So if you admit that there are real moral obligations, you may wish to temper your temper the next time someone says, "You ought to" because they may just be doing you a favor, not simply being judgmental.