The Meaning of Ought

December 20, 2024 | 1,015 words | 5min read

Where Does Ought Come From?

In the modern moral landscape, theories like egoism, deontology, and utilitarianism gain a wide array of support from Western philosophers. One central word in all of these theories is ought. In rational egoism, which tells us the most moral action is what benefits oneself the most, we say one ought to maximize their self-interest. In deontological ethics, where we are asked to follow rules, we say we ought to follow them. Finally, in utilitarianism, which tells us to maximize the benefit for all, we say we ought to maximize the happiness of all those affected.

But when we say ought, what do we actually mean? What do we evoke with it?

When we say ought, we do not mean one can follow the deontological rules or not. Instead, it is commonly interpreted as an imperative. If we look at the etymology of the word ought, this interpretation makes sense. It comes from the Old English word agan, which means something like to owe. So when we say, we ought not to kill, we are saying something akin to we owe it not to kill. Here, the word owe implies more of an obligation than a choice.

But when we say we owe it, two questions immediately come to mind:

1. Whom do we owe it to?
2. Why do we owe someone, or where does this obligation (or debt) come from?

To answer these questions, we need to look at history. Rigorous moral theory began with the Greeks, such as Aristotle. For Aristotle, the word ought held a slightly different meaning—it was closer to need. So when someone said, we ought not to kill, what was conveyed was that exemplary humans do not kill (more on this later).

However, over time, Western philosophy became dominated by Judeo-Christian ways of thinking, particularly with the rise of Christianity, and this influence became deeply rooted in our language.

In Christianity, which is based on the Jewish Torah full of rules and regulations, morality became a matter of following God’s commands, laid out in rules such as the Ten Commandments. As such, when we say ought, what we mean is that there is a divine rule one must follow. One ought not to kill becomes killing is against the divine moral law.

Contemporary Moral Philosophy

The meaning of ought made sense within the Christian paradigm. However, contemporary moral philosophers have made a conscious effort to free themselves from the “shackles of religion”. In other words, they have attempted to reinvent moral philosophy without relying on religious axioms.

In this secular world, the word ought begins to lose its meaning. It once evoked a sense of obligation—as though breaking a divine rule or command. Without such rules, to whom does this obligation apply? Why do we owe anything to anyone? To ourselves? And if so, where does this debt originate?

It’s as if, in today’s climate, we removed the word verdict from its association with judges, laws, courts, and the entire legal system—while simultaneously trying to preserve its original meaning. Certainly, we could still apply the word verdict to situations without courts or judges, but it would have lost much of its essence and clarity.

The same is true of the word ought. We have removed ought from its Judeo-Christian context and now use it in modern moral theories that lack a solid foundation. When we make moral claims today, we often rely on a chain of logical arguments, but these arguments seem to float freely, ungrounded and unsupported by any ultimate foundation.

Systems like egoism and utilitarianism may provide us with rules or principles to follow, but these systems are ultimately arbitrary. There is no consistent or objective way to determine which moral theory is superior to the other.

Virtue Ethics

If ought no longer makes sense when speaking about moral claims, what other word could we use? One alternative is need. While need may not carry the same force and urgency as ought, it possesses other features that make it attractive.

What does need mean? We always use need in connection with the concept of a flourishing life. For example, what does a plant need to flourish? It needs water, sunlight, and nutrients. In that sense, we could say it ought to have these things, but the language of need is more fitting and natural.

We can apply the same reasoning to humans. Using psychology and philosophy, we can examine ourselves to identify what humans as a species need to flourish.

In this framework, we would move away from deontological claims—like labeling actions as good or bad. Instead, we would use evaluative language such as just, truthful, loyal, or patient.

This approach not only provides a more expressive moral language, but it also allows us to extend the discussion to non-humans, such as animals. Asking questions like, What does an animal need? makes far more sense than What do we owe an animal?

One method of identifying what humans need to flourish is through virtue ethics. Virtue ethics addresses not only the question, How can one be moral? but also How can one live a good life? The answer to both is the same: a virtuous person achieves both morality and happiness.

A virtuous person is someone who embodies qualities such as truthfulness, loyalty, courage, patience, and so on. One might question why a person needs to be truthful (or possess any other virtue) to flourish—after all, could one not lie and still gain something?

The answer is twofold. First, being virtuous leads to a deep sense of contentment with oneself. Second, it results in stronger and more meaningful relationships with others. Friends and loved ones will feel they can rely on you because you are virtuous.

I want to end with a thought from Aristotle. He suggested that every action a human takes shapes their character, much like a sculptor chiseling marble into form.

Thus, whether the final statue—your character—becomes a beautiful masterpiece or something rotten and sinister depends entirely on your virtuous or vicious actions.

Resources:

• Modern Moral Philosophy by GEM Anscombe, 1958