Does "should" imply "can"?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I was listening to a lecture on what the speaker called "New Ethics" the other day. While he was talking about the implications of ability when it comes to ethics and morality, he made a statement that I thought was interesting:

"While 'is' doesn't imply 'must', 'should' implies 'can'."

He then expanded on what he meant. Briefly, he said that he meant that while observations of what is "natural" don't necessarily imply that the observed behaviours are moral or ethical (or even necessary), an ethical system necessarily has to take into account the capabilities of the person subject to that system. IOW, the ethical instruction "you should do 'X'" inherently assumes "you are capable of doing 'X'."

So... a question for all of you: do you agree?


And to tie this back to religion: something I've heard from many Christians is that the Atonement was necessary because it would be impossible for any human to fully meet all 613 laws of the "Old Covenant". If this is the case, and given the above, does this mean that the "Old Covenant" was not truly an ethical system?

 

[Skwim]

Although I can see his 'should' implies 'can'." I would instead say, 'should' assumes 'can'."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Although I can see his 'should' implies 'can'." I would instead say, 'should' assumes 'can'."

Good point. It's a fine distinction, but I think it's important.

So if an instruction "you should do 'X'" is given but you're not capable of doing 'X', has the instruction-giver committed an error?

 

[thegospelkiss]

I was listening to a lecture on what the speaker called "New Ethics" the other day. While he was talking about the implications of ability when it comes to ethics and morality, he made a statement that I thought was interesting:

"While 'is' doesn't imply 'must', 'should' implies 'can'."

He then expanded on what he meant. Briefly, he said that he meant that while observations of what is "natural" don't necessarily imply that the observed behaviours are moral or ethical (or even necessary), an ethical system necessarily has to take into account the capabilities of the person subject to that system. IOW, the ethical instruction "you should do 'X'" inherently assumes "you are capable of doing 'X'."

So... a question for all of you: do you agree?


And to tie this back to religion: something I've heard from many Christians is that the Atonement was necessary because it would be impossible for any human to fully meet all 613 laws of the "Old Covenant". If this is the case, and given the above, does this mean that the "Old Covenant" was not truly an ethical system?

I agree that 'should' assumes 'can'. Not a big fan of 'should' though. Often it merely expresses the preference of the speaker wrapped in 'authoritative' language.

As for the OT part of your question: my understanding and belief concerning the Jewish law is that it was given to demonstrate man's inability to keep all of it perfectly - IOW, to show man his impotence and therefore his need for God. Man can never be good enough on his own, can never do anything on his own, in fact. Jesus said, 'I can do nothing of myself'. I doubt, though, that the Jews accepted the law on those terms. Like most people they apparently just assumed they could follow all the rules, and set about trying to - based IMO on the false belief that they could somehow 'please' God, or pridefully earn salvation.

 

[Willamena]

IOW, the ethical instruction "you should do 'X'" inherently assumes "you are capable of doing 'X'."

So... a question for all of you: do you agree?

Yes, but only in the general case, not for a particular. I would say, rather, that "the ethical instruction you should do 'X' inherently implies that X can be done."

Edit: Changed it to implies, as I agree with the above comments.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree that 'should' assumes 'can'. Not a big fan of 'should' though. Often it merely expresses the preference of the speaker wrapped in 'authoritative' language.

Sometimes, though quite a bit of the rest of the lecture was a discussion of the question of how we figure out "should" in a way that isn't merely preference.

As for the OT part of your question: my understanding and belief concerning the Jewish law is that it was given to demonstrate man's inability to keep all of it perfectly - IOW, to show man his impotence and therefore his need for God. Man can never be good enough on his own, can never do anything on his own, in fact. Jesus said, 'I can do nothing of myself'. I doubt, though, that the Jews accepted the law on those terms. Like most people they apparently just assumed they could follow all the rules, and set about trying to - based IMO on the false belief that they could somehow 'please' God, or pridefully earn salvation.

So then the concept of a "debt" of "sin" is wrong? I mean, if everything was set up by God as a way to demonstrate his greatness and our dependence on him, then we can't be faulted for failing to meet that standard when we were set up to fail, right?

IOW, it would be a matter of humanity learning a valuable lesson, not a matter of humanity racking up a "debt" of sin, no?

 

[thegospelkiss]

Sometimes, though quite a bit of the rest of the lecture was a discussion of the question of how we figure out "should" in a way that isn't merely preference.

What was the name of the lecturer? I'd be curious.

So then the concept of a "debt" of "sin" is wrong? I mean, if everything was set up by God as a way to demonstrate his greatness and our dependence on him, then we can't be faulted for failing to meet that standard when we were set up to fail, right?

IOW, it would be a matter of humanity learning a valuable lesson, not a matter of humanity racking up a "debt" of sin, no?

That's what I believe. I have a couple of posts on here you can check out if you're interested. One's called 'What is sin'; another, 'Why the crucifixion'; and another, 'The Gospel - according to me'. They go into a little more detail.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What was the name of the lecturer? I'd be curious.

Christopher W. diCarlo. You can actually watch the lecture through the link in the OP.

That's what I believe. I have a couple of posts on here you can check out if you're interested. One's called 'What is sin'; another, 'Why the crucifixion'; and another, 'The Gospel - according to me'. They go into a little more detail.

Okay - thanks.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Without can, should is rather meaningless. That being said, people should do a lot of things that they can't.

 

[Engyo]

So, saying "you should stick your left big toe into your left ear" implys that you can do so?

 

[Koldo]

So, saying "you should stick your left big toe into your left ear" implys that you can do so?

Rather, it implies the speaker assumes you can do so.
Unless the speaker is making use of irony, or trying to deceive the listener.

 

[Penumbra]

I was listening to a lecture on what the speaker called "New Ethics" the other day. While he was talking about the implications of ability when it comes to ethics and morality, he made a statement that I thought was interesting:

"While 'is' doesn't imply 'must', 'should' implies 'can'."

He then expanded on what he meant. Briefly, he said that he meant that while observations of what is "natural" don't necessarily imply that the observed behaviours are moral or ethical (or even necessary), an ethical system necessarily has to take into account the capabilities of the person subject to that system. IOW, the ethical instruction "you should do 'X'" inherently assumes "you are capable of doing 'X'."

So... a question for all of you: do you agree?

Yes, I agree.

My caveat would be that it's often difficult to know what oneself or others are capable of, though. If the "should" seems to be a bit out of reach of what one "can" do, but not ridiculously so, then they should probably still strive towards that "should" (assuming they agree with it). When in doubt, assume you can. Otherwise, it could be (and I'd wager often is), an excuse to say that one did not do something they should have done because they cannot do so, despite the fact that, if they had reached for it, they could have done it.

But logically if someone can't do something, it's not reasonable to say they should do it.

And to tie this back to religion: something I've heard from many Christians is that the Atonement was necessary because it would be impossible for any human to fully meet all 613 laws of the "Old Covenant". If this is the case, and given the above, does this mean that the "Old Covenant" was not truly an ethical system?

Yes, I'd say so.

Good point. It's a fine distinction, but I think it's important.

So if an instruction "you should do 'X'" is given but you're not capable of doing 'X', has the instruction-giver committed an error?

Yes, I'd say the instruction-giver has committed an error.

It depends on the context, though. If the instruction-giver tells an audience "you should do x", she has no way of knowing which of them are capable. The best she can do is make sure she's speaking to an audience that, statistically speaking, matches her target demographic. If she's speaking to an individual, it makes sense to know roughly what someone is capable of before offering advice on what to do.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I was listening to a lecture on what the speaker called "New Ethics" the other day. While he was talking about the implications of ability when it comes to ethics and morality, he made a statement that I thought was interesting:

"While 'is' doesn't imply 'must', 'should' implies 'can'."

He then expanded on what he meant. Briefly, he said that he meant that while observations of what is "natural" don't necessarily imply that the observed behaviours are moral or ethical (or even necessary), an ethical system necessarily has to take into account the capabilities of the person subject to that system. IOW, the ethical instruction "you should do 'X'" inherently assumes "you are capable of doing 'X'."

So... a question for all of you: do you agree?


And to tie this back to religion: something I've heard from many Christians is that the Atonement was necessary because it would be impossible for any human to fully meet all 613 laws of the "Old Covenant". If this is the case, and given the above, does this mean that the "Old Covenant" was not truly an ethical system?

Are you speaking of the law as a whole or each individual point? We are all capable of not breaking all of the laws at some given point in time but cumulatavily we do not keep all of them all of the time. Does this mean we are incapable of it?

 

[Comicaze247]

So, saying "you should stick your left big toe into your left ear" implys that you can do so?

The fact that I can implies that I can

Though I wouldn't assume that "should do X" implies the ability to do X. Just because I should do something doesn't mean that I am capable of it.

 

[where am I]

The is ought debate is david hume1737. Passions volitions and actions are not subject to real relations of ideas or real existance of matter of fact. These are not emotions and are not suseptible to emotions either. I do not know where the new ethics is trying to go,if infact it is new at all, but I feel he is adopting this idea out of context. As far as hume is conserned I believe only finite existence is subject to truth or falsehoods [matter of fact] because it is interdependent [chained one to the other].passions volitions[free will] and action might be expressions of recognition, eluding to a purpose, value, and arguably the neccesity for an absolute. There is in my mind no other way to describe morality or sociol accountability and I seriously doubt whether I can gives me reason.

 

[where am I]

So... a question for all of you: do you agree?

So... my aswer is no, but to place my disagreement in context to your question framing ethics around what is practical is also a very old concept. It fills the space of every page in HG Well's Modern Utopia. To reach for things we know we can achieve, to fight for things we know we can win, holds none of the attributes we would consider virtuous. Chesterton argued such practicality to be decadence, it certainly does not posses the courage in the honorable heart of a dieing soldier or the adventure of a brave sailor exploring the sea to its presumed end. I think deciding what we should do by the security of what we can do has maybe more the sound of a comfortable coward too afraid to vow anything because of discomfort or enevitable failure and the sound could be a life utterly irrelevant. The covenant only caims life to be sacred, but from this point of view its moral perfection allows the traveler the chance to be wonderful.

 

[Manahel.Fatima]

I think this is not possible we can not imply should with can. It seems like some one boost you so much that you can do that and you start doing X work . But it hardly happen. So my answer is no.

 

[Engyo]

The fact that I can implies that I can

Though I wouldn't assume that "should do X" implies the ability to do X. Just because I should do something doesn't mean that I am capable of it.

Pics or I ain't believin' it!

 

[Duck]

I was listening to a lecture on what the speaker called "New Ethics" the other day. While he was talking about the implications of ability when it comes to ethics and morality, he made a statement that I thought was interesting:

"While 'is' doesn't imply 'must', 'should' implies 'can'."

He then expanded on what he meant. Briefly, he said that he meant that while observations of what is "natural" don't necessarily imply that the observed behaviours are moral or ethical (or even necessary), an ethical system necessarily has to take into account the capabilities of the person subject to that system. IOW, the ethical instruction "you should do 'X'" inherently assumes "you are capable of doing 'X'."

So... a question for all of you: do you agree?


And to tie this back to religion: something I've heard from many Christians is that the Atonement was necessary because it would be impossible for any human to fully meet all 613 laws of the "Old Covenant". If this is the case, and given the above, does this mean that the "Old Covenant" was not truly an ethical system?

I dunno, most of the time the way that 'should' is used it is more likely to imply 'must'. Think about it, when 'should' is used particularly by anyone with any authority it is more likely to mean 'you shall' than to mean 'you are able to' (as the implied 'can'). Even if there is no relative authority phrasing as 'should' is strongly indicative of an obligation to do something that the speaker desires you to do (you can easily replace 'should' with 'ought to' or 'must', more easily than with 'can'). The implied 'can' is assumed by the speaker, 'you should try this eggplant' is predicated on the capability of the listener to be able to try the eggplant, but is directive in nature.

That probably isn't as coherent as I would like it to be, I blame the muscle relaxers.

 

[sojourner]

I was listening to a lecture on what the speaker called "New Ethics" the other day. While he was talking about the implications of ability when it comes to ethics and morality, he made a statement that I thought was interesting:

"While 'is' doesn't imply 'must', 'should' implies 'can'."

He then expanded on what he meant. Briefly, he said that he meant that while observations of what is "natural" don't necessarily imply that the observed behaviours are moral or ethical (or even necessary), an ethical system necessarily has to take into account the capabilities of the person subject to that system. IOW, the ethical instruction "you should do 'X'" inherently assumes "you are capable of doing 'X'."

So... a question for all of you: do you agree?


And to tie this back to religion: something I've heard from many Christians is that the Atonement was necessary because it would be impossible for any human to fully meet all 613 laws of the "Old Covenant". If this is the case, and given the above, does this mean that the "Old Covenant" was not truly an ethical system?

those folks are wrong. The Jews don't seem to have a problem with not being able to be perfect in keeping the Law. And if we read the gospels carefully, that was neither Jesus' concern, nor the reason for the crucifixion. The crucifixion alludes to the annual sacrifice of atonement for sin. But even the Jews understood that it wasn't the act itself that effected atonement. It was God. Participation in the act only made one more acutely aware of what God was already doing. Xians would call it a "sacrament" -- an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace.

It is immaterial whether we could fully meet all the Law. What is material is when that Law (and the keeping of it) become so important that they become an idol -- overshadowing God, upon whom is the real onus for salvation.

So, I don't think this ethical construct has anything to do with real religion, in the way you suggest. (It would for the Substitutionary Atonement Crowd, but they've got bigger problems than an ethical construct, IMO.)