I’m going to start this with a brief discussion of a philosophical concept. Please don’t be dissuaded from reading to the end! I’ll also give my usual disclaimer here, which is that I am not an expert on this topic. I’m just a curious individual who has come across various tidbits of knowledge and I like to share my thoughts on them.
Eighteenth century Scottish philosopher, David Hume (1711-1776), advanced the idea that no statement of fact alone—a statement of what “is”—can result in a conclusion of what “ought” to be. For example: Men are stronger than women typically, therefore women ought to be subservient to man. Hume’s concept is often referred to as the is-ought problem, or by the more interesting moniker, Hume’s Guillotine, since it severs the connection between the “is” and the “ought” in any statement. Hume would say that you cannot logically come to the conclusion that women “should” be subservient to men solely because of the factual proposition that men “are” stronger.
Any “ought” statement, according to Hume, is a non sequitur to the preceding “is” statement. It does not follow the laws of logic. Every statement of what ought to be is wrapped up in a complex package of unspoken assumptions and preferences.
This might be difficult to visualize so I’ll give a few more examples. A person could state that “Phoenix is hot, so people ought to live somewhere cooler.” On the other hand, a different person could say “Phoenix is hot, so you ought to live there to avoid having to shovel snow!” Same statement of fact, different conclusions. That, in a very simplistic way, shows what Hume meant when he said that a conclusion of what ought to be cannot be derived solely from a statement of fact of what is. The two different conclusions in those examples are dependent upon assumptions about whether hot weather is preferable and enjoyable.
As another example, a person could say “human bodies are made to consume meat, therefore people should not be vegetarians.” Another person could respond that “killing animals is cruel and unnecessary, therefore people should be vegetarians.” Here, we have opposite conclusions derived from different statements of fact. Again, though, the conclusions of what ought to be cannot logically be derived from the statement of what is. In each instance, the person is likely hand-picking the “is” statement to match their already preferred conclusion.
Ever since I first ran across Hume’s Guillotine, it has been in the back of my mind frequently when I come across “should” or “ought” statements, especially in regards to politics since that is a special interest of mine. There isn’t anything wrong, per se, with using the words should and ought. I use them all the time. To be fair, we often use the word “should” as a rhetorical device when we feel strongly about something, precisely because we want to impart the notion of moral certainty and correctness, as a persuasive measure to get people on our side. But it is really interesting to have Hume’s Guillotine in your mind so you can remember to look at the bigger picture of how we get to those conclusions, and perhaps to take those statements with a grain of salt.
Really quick, let me explain what I’m not talking about. First, we commonly use the word “should” to refer to what is likely to happen, as in, “It should rain tomorrow.” This essay is not about those statements, where we predict what is likely to happen based on the evidence. Instead, I’m talking about statements where we make a judgment call about the best way to do things. Second, I’m talking about choices, not facts. I’m definitely not saying there are never correct answers to anything. Science and data do reveal facts.
When we say something “should” be a certain way, it implies that there is a Right course of action, with a capital R. But in reality that’s not always the case. More often than not, there are many competing factors and things could conceivably go different ways. But saying “should” creates zealots—it causes people to choose and stick with a position with no room for compromise.
For instance, once you take the position that women “should not” get abortions, it’s hard for you to see the complexities of the issue and you become rigid in forcing the facts and laws to fit your “should.” You become less willing to listen to competing ideas. When you say “should,” you’re assuming everyone shares your same idea of what is “good.” It makes it easier to label the other side as stupid or bad for not agreeing with you.
A “should” statement is often just preference masquerading as fact.
Removing the “should” forces us to be more humble in our opinions, because now we’re looking at them through the lens of what we prefer, and with preference there’s an inherent understanding that other people have different preferences.
Let’s be honest—there are innumerable methods of governance, economy and trade, education, law and order, etc. that are used across the world by our diverse societies. Some are “better” than others, to the extent we agree on what is “good” in the first place. So when we are approached with questions of governance and how we “should” run the country, there are indeed innumerable ways we can conceivably go about it. You just tend to prefer some ways more than others.
Nothing “should” be one way or another unless we agree that it “should” be that way. In America, we express our preference through a democratic or representative vote. We are also directed largely by precedence (as happens in societies with strong legal traditions where the law is routinely upheld).
What got me thinking about this recently was a question posed by C-Span on Facebook to the effect of “Should university education be free?” I don’t think there’s a right answer to that one. There are a multitude of different ways to set up a higher education system, all with plusses and minuses, but there isn’t a “Right” way. Once you start thinking in “shoulds,” you dig in and that’s that—your rational thinking becomes impaired as you only seek arguments in your favor.
For a thought experiment, think about how different it is when you change the wording of the question about whether university should be free to “Do you like the idea of free university education for all?” It’s a lot easier to consider multiple perspectives when we’re talking about pliable preferences rather than unbending moral certainties. You can still talk about why your preference is “better,” and try to win people to your side. But you’re approaching it from the position of why something is preferable, not why something is Right.
Here are a few more examples I pulled from a Google news search.
What if instead we said “Would you like Biden to finish the border wall, and why?”
Instead, “Would you like colleges to require vaccines and why?”
Instead, “Do you want Texans to be able to carry handguns without a license, and why?”
In each of these instance, when we turn the question away from what “should” be to what we “would like” to be, it allows us to better discuss the plusses and minuses of the options in a more open minded way. We can talk about what we consider to be a “good” outcome and how our chosen preference helps get us there.
I personally don’t like guns. I would prefer that our country didn’t have such a big gun culture and that we had tighter gun controls in place. I feel that way regardless of what the Constitution says. Guns are not a hobby for me, I don’t hunt, I don’t like the gun aesthetic, I don’t want one for self-defense, and most importantly, I fear mass shootings. So to me, I personally don’t have any need for guns and would be happier if we didn’t have this gun culture. I understand that’s my preference, and that other people have different preferences. I don’t feel like it is a moral dictate that a country should not have guns.
Perhaps it’s a subtle difference, but it brings some of these more divisive questions back to where they really exist—preference. Try to convince people that your preference is better. But don’t try to convince people that you’re “right,” because all the facts in the world can’t justify your supposed rightness. We need to agree on what is preferable and good, and show how the facts get us to that preferable outcome.
As you go about your lives and you see people talking about what “should be,” try taking a step back to look at the question as what you “want to be.” Try to look at what unspoken value judgments a person is relying on when they say something “should” be. Do you agree with those value judgments? Are there any other competing value judgments that result in a different conclusion, or are there different conclusions that result from the same value judgments?
Like what you’ve read? Please subscribe to get this type of content delivered to your inbox once a week. I appreciate you more than you know!
Source:
Portrait by Allan Ramsay - https://www.nationalgalleries.org/art-and-artists/60610/david-hume-1711-1776-historian-and-philosopher-1754, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1367760
Eloquently articulated! This does overlap with the field of cultural linguistics. This article also reminds me of Hume’s quote: “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence”
Great write-up. Always good to recap Hume's stuff.