"Should"

LionelNashe

In English, we could use "should" in two ways:

1) You shouldn't steal.
2) You shouldn't walk down that dark alleyway. It's not safe.

The first is moralising, the second is giving advice to somebody about what's in their own interest.

If you said number 2 to somebody after they had walked down the alleyway and not been mugged, they might thank you for the advice. If you said it to somebody who had walked down the alleyway and was mugged, you could be accused of victim blaming, i.e. you could be accused of implying that they deserved to get mugged, or that they were partially to blame. It would be seen as "moralising".

Is this a confusion of thought that's caused by the ambiguous nature of the word "should" in English? Is it any different in other languages? Or is it the other way around: maybe the way we use language is determined by the way we think?

Morbert

The second use of "should" you describe is called a hypothetical imperative.

George Hook, however, was not tendering a hypothetical imperative when he blamed a rape victim for being raped.

LionelNashe

Morbert wrote: »

The second use of "should" you describe is called a hypothetical imperative.

George Hook, however, was not tendering a hypothetical imperative when he blamed a rape victim for being raped.

I'm not looking to have a conversation about George Hook. That's why I didn't mention him.

Victor

LionelNashe wrote: »

1) You shouldn't steal.

"Do not hurt others. If you do, expect to be reprimanded (in whatever form).2

2) You shouldn't walk down that dark alleyway. It's not safe.

"Be careful, you might get hurt (by someone else). If you get hurt, you can't say it was unexpected."

The problem arises when third parties equate the two along the lines of "you deserve to be hurt if walk down a dark alleyway". It seems to be espoused most heartily by those that confuse political correctness and health & safety.

LionelNashe

Victor wrote: »

Do not hurt others. If you do, expect to be reprimanded (in whatever form).

Be careful, you might get hurt (by someone else). If you get hurt, you can't say it was unexpected.

The problem arises when third parties equate the two along the lines of "you deserve to be hurt if walk down a dark alleyway".

That's what I'm thinking - that there's a cognitive fallacy. Sometimes it leads to people saying or thinking "You deserve to get hurt if you walk down a dark alleyway". In other cases it leads to people saying "Don't tell me what to do. I'll walk down a dark alleyway if I feel like it. You're apologising for muggers."

The below is the entire Wikipedia entry for linguistic philosophy, but I think that this is something to do with it:

Linguistic philosophy is the view that philosophical problems are problems which may be solved (or dissolved) either by reforming language, or by understanding more about the language we presently use. The former position is that of ideal language philosophy, the latter the position of ordinary language philosophy.

Victor wrote: »

It seems to be espoused most heartily by those that confuse political correctness and health & safety.

The people who say you can't have a cup of hot tea because it will offend a pakistani.

Joe1919

LionelNashe wrote: »

In English, we could use "should" in two ways:

1) You shouldn't steal.
2) You shouldn't walk down that dark alleyway. It's not safe.

The first is moralising, the second is giving advice to somebody about what's in their own interest.

If you said number 2 to somebody after they had walked down the alleyway and not been mugged, they might thank you for the advice. If you said it to somebody who had walked down the alleyway and was mugged, you could be accused of victim blaming, i.e. you could be accused of implying that they deserved to get mugged, or that they were partially to blame. It would be seen as "moralising".

Is this a confusion of thought that's caused by the ambiguous nature of the word "should" in English? Is it any different in other languages? Or is it the other way around: maybe the way we use language is determined by the way we think?

You could discuss this above in terms of 'imperatives'.

Kant distinguishes two types of imperatives: categorical imperatives and hypothetical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives have the general form, “If you want Φ then you ought to do Ψ.” “If you want to lose weight, you should not eat chocolate,” is an example of a hypothetical imperative......In contrast with hypothetical imperatives, which depend on one’s having particular desires or ends (such as wanting to lose weight), categorical imperatives describe what we are required to do independently of what we may desire or prefer. In this respect they prescribe behavior categorically. A categorical imperative has the general form, “Do A!” or “you ought to do A.” Kant argues that moral rules are categorical imperatives, since the content of a moral prohibition is supposed to apply quite independently of our desires and preferences. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Categorical_imperative

Now here's the important bit. Many argue that there are no such 'categoricial imperatives' or that all imperatives are hypothetical, or can be reduced as for example listed below.

Schopenhauer’s Criticism: The Categorical Imperative Reduces to Egoism
Hegel’s Criticism: The Categorical Imperative has no Practical Application
Mill’s Criticism: The Categorical Imperative Reduces to Utilitarianism
Anscombe’s Criticism: There Is No Procedure for Constructing Maxims
https://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/300/categorical.htm

I would tent to agree with the above. So when you say ' You shouldn't steal.', its just that you have not given a reason as to why. In this case then, there is no difference between the word 'should' above in your two examples other than a reason been made explicit in the second case. i.e There are no absolute 'should s' (or 'should not's').

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

"Should:" Old English sceolde, 1200 AD. Word etymology suggests an obligation to do something.