© Roger M Tagg 2009 revised 2010
Welcome to FROLIO – a new attempt to merge philosophy and the "semantic web" . This website is under continuing development.
We often use the word ought, or its close companion should, in everyday speech. But it seems to me that there is a whole range of subtly different meanings. All of these meanings, however, are different from the word is - and as has been pointed out elsewhere, many languages do not have a verb equivalent to the is in English, and it is more specific to regard is as one or other of the relationship types in FROLIO.
So in this essay we attempt to apply a similar categorization to ought. This is very much a draft version.
This means that if the theory is true and accurate, certain events will happen.
Examples: The rain ought to reach Adelaide by mid-afternoon. The eclipse of the moon should start at 9:54 pm here. The election result ought to be close (based on sample polling). John ought to have arrived by now (based on his reliability in the past and his last phone message saying he was on the train. Tiddles (our cat) ought to be around the house somewhere as it's getting near feeding time.
Of course theories may be debunked, or they may not be capable of offering very accurate estimates (as with the weather in many places). The subject is not usually an individual human, as he/she may have some degree of free will.
This means that a human or a group has made a promise or signed an agreement or contract.
Examples: I ought to avoid having affairs while I am still married. Our company ought to pay the invoice according to the terms of the supply agreement.
This means that a process has been started which determines what happens in what sequence and maybe in what timescale.
Examples: My pay ought to be in my bank account by now. The tax office ought to reply to my appeal.
This means that if in order to get the best results on the scale of value, an individual or group ought to take a certain action. This divides into "good for me" (Ovm), "good for my neighbour" (Ovn), "good for the group" (Ovg) and "good for the planet" (Ovp). Of course groups could be small (e.g. family, team) or large (e.g. nation, alliance)
Examples: I ought to wear a hat and put on sunscreen in the summer. I ought to get a better pair of shoes as these are leaky. I ought to cut down on fatty and junk food. We ought to get a more reliable car. I ought to help my wife do the dishes. We ought to sort our waste better and re-cycle more. We ought to install solar heating panels (maybe a mix of group and planet benefits). The council ought to repair that pot-holed stretch of road (good for peoples' safety)..
This means that certain people, acting as a group, have made a rule or set up some system of authority, usually with some sanction if we do not comply. This overlaps with "value" because the sanction can equate to loss of value in some respect (e.g. a fine, an imposition, imprisonment, corporal punishment or an early death). It may possibly overlap with "contract", because I may have "signed on", e.g. to the army. If I am religious, I may assume that God will send me to Hell if I act sinfully.
Examples: I ought to vote in the Australian general election (it's compulsory!). I ought to do what my boss tells me. When the major orders "over the top" I ought to go forward out of the trenches. I ought to pray 5 times a day.
This means that I don't have any explicit reason for behaving in a certain way, but because of my upbringing, education and maybe indoctrination, this is how I feel.
Examples: I ought to send my cousin a birthday card. I ought to help that swimmer who looks at risk of drowning. I ought to behave considerately and politely to everyone. I ought to be kind to animals.
The subject of ethics has been much talked about for a long time, going back at least to Socrates and Aristotle. They didn't treat ethics as dependent on any particular religion, and many people would agree that there are good and bad Christians, good and bad Moslems and good and bad atheists.
Aristotle for example talked about "a good life" as leading to contentment; other goals (like wealth) being just a means to that end. He also emphasised the idea of the "golden mean" of moderation. We have to remember, though, that in Ancient Greece people like Aristotle had slaves to do a lot of their chores, and Aristotle even wanted to exclude farmers and traders from his scheme of things.
Since then many variations have been proposed, like Morality, Normative behaviour and Utilitarianism.
The simplest division of approaches to ethics seems to be between Teleological ethics (ought because of a purpose, consequences or value) and Deontological ethics (ought because it's the right thing, independent of the consequences). An extreme form of the latter is Emotivism (ought because doing otherwise is distasteful to us). One well known deontological approach is Kant's categorical imperative - one ought to act according to a rule that one thinks should be a rule for everyone.
Ought might initially seem to be an easy thing to resolve, but there are two massive problems. Firstly many people disagree on what is the "right thing" - possibly (as was said earlier) depending on their background, education and indoctrination. Secondly if we do take a Teleological or Utilitarian approach the consequences are not usually simple - they affect many different people groups and issues, and anyhow, we cannot often predict what the main effects - and the side effects - will be.
Index to more of these diatribes
Some of these links may be under construction – or re-construction.
This version updated on 3rd February 2010
If you have constructive suggestions or comments, please contact the author rogertag@tpg.com.au .