Should

Are there "shoulds?" I've heard the phrase, "Don't let someone 'should' on your day." I've also heard the idea that moral relativism leads to chaos. So, which is correct?

First, let's define the word "should." It turns out there are quite a number of meanings.

1. Indicates obligation or duty.
2. Indicates probability.
3. Expresses a conditional mood.
4. Expresses a polite request.
5. Expresses a conjecture or hope.
6. Expresses purpose.

I want to use two sentences for analysis.

1. A civil society should have shared values.
2. We should have a civil society.

The first sentence expresses utility. The second expresses a value judgment. A society is a group of people living in more or less order. Civility means politeness and courtesy in behavior and speech. In order to have a courteous, ordered society, there needs to be a collection of values that all individuals agree upon. Logically, this line of reasoning makes sense. Different values lead to conflict between those values. Conflict leads to chaos, which disorders society.

But, do we want a completely ordered and polite society? Is there a moral imperative to have this? I wonder if we can get to the root through the question "why." Why do we want a civil society? Because a civil society is more peaceful. Why do we want peace? Be cause peace leads to human flourishing. Why do we want human flourishing? Because humans are valuable. Why are humans valuable? Because they are.

At this point, we run into an axiomatic, self-evident truth. Why is humanity valuable? Because.... I say so? God says so? It just is? Eventually we run into axioms that are simple brute facts that you either accept or deny. Properly basic beliefs.

Let's take the other word: civility. Politeness and courtesy. Is it important for a society to be polite? This one's a little trickier. It seems politeness is a value we should all hold. What is politeness? Politeness means to be respectful and considerate of others. Is respect and consideration always warranted? Lets's take an extreme example. What if we come across a man raping a woman? Should we be respectful and considerate towards the man in that moment? It's almost obscene to ask. If we hold the value that all humans are valuable and the rapist and the victim are human, then both are valuable. How do we demonstrate that each are valuable? For the victim, it would be to stop the rape and subdue the perpetrator. And how does one demonstrate respect towards the rapist? Perhaps with that one it's looking at not the man today but the man in 20 years. Or maybe the man in his next lifetime. In order to value the future version of that man, we need to rehabilitate the present man into a better version of himself.

But, then, what is the better version of himself? It seems that a better man would not rape, so we can agree that would be something to shape the man into. But what about things like political leanings? Should he be rehabilitated into a conservative or a liberal value? Which is better? And who's to say which is better?

It gets complicated really fast, and as finite minds with limited knowledge, it seems impossible to have enough wisdom to proper reach a conclusion. Does that mean we throw up our hands and say all is lost? I hope not.

There's an idea about the afterlife that I want to present, but this post is getting a little long, so I'll save it for tomorrow. For now, on the question if there should be shoulds, I'll simply say, "It's complicated."