0

I am trying to find out what the relationship is between statements that involve the speakers wants, and statements that involve what the speaker thinks as should.

Here is my example:

Speaker: "The court ought to proceed in accordance with the law."

Speaker: "I want the court to proceed in accordance with the law."

Does anyone know the relationship that is between these two statements? I think it is to do with morals but i'm not at all sure.

Richard Bamford
  • 796
  • 3
  • 11
  • 1
    I think this is an issue of semantics and ambigous beyond answering unless context is given. I guess one thing is that what we want is not neccesarily should happen. Like maybe I want to eat sweets a lot but I shouldn't do that because if I did then I would have sugar/ teeth problems – Reine Abstraktion Jun 27 '22 at 20:35
  • In one context there seems to be a strict definition approach of a concept. In the second example there is an indication of what one would like but it is not absolute as in the first case. The first case has the absolute impact: for example, "all laws should be judged by the Supreme Court if it is deem unconstitutional." This is not a request. This is going by a principle. If I ask the Supreme Court to hear a case above other cases may be requested if there is sufficient reason why this case should go before other cases in the court. This is a request with justification. – Logikal Jun 28 '22 at 04:48
  • This looks like a homework problem. – David Gudeman Jun 28 '22 at 04:49

3 Answers3

3

The difference that I see is:

Speaker: "The court ought to proceed in accordance with the law."

This statement implies there are reasons beyond the personal desires of the speaker for proceeding.

Speaker: "I want the court to proceed in accordance with the law."

This statement implies the reason is a personal desire.

1

"Should" implies a speculation and/or general principle and "want" a personal desire.

Though they only imply that, you can very much frame your personal desire as a general principle or vice versa. So without further context the usage of one word is not going to reveal the speakers full intention.

haxor789
  • 4,203
  • 3
  • 25
0

Let us suppose that the speaker does not want the court to proceed in accordance with the law. For instance, he can win his case if he brings in faked evidence that is not obviously faked but is obviously of dubious provenance. The law will prevent this.

This does not mean that the court ought not to proceed in accordance with the law.

Mary
  • 1,948
  • 1
  • 7
  • 25