I think the two senses are really the same: if you accept consequentialist ethics, then the moral debt meaning can be translated as “If you want utility for person/group X, you should do B”.
Whenever people use this word “should” in a sneaky way in a debate, I always find myself reminding them that it only has meaning with respect to someone or some group’s preferences, and by glossing over exactly who’s preferences we’re talking about, people can get away with making bad arguments.
I’m not saying that ordinary usages of the word “should” are statements of morality, rather the opposite: statements of morality can be translated into ordinary usage, and if they can’t they probably aren’t coherent statements.
“I am morally obliged to treat this person’s injury”
“Why?”
“Because it would stop their suffering”
Perhaps we prefer to call it a moral statement when it’s about other people’s utility functions, rather than our own. Then again, we usually don’t feel morally obliged to cater to others’ preferences except to the extent that we have a preference of our own for their preferences to be satisfied, which, thankfully, most people do.
I think the two senses are really the same: if you accept consequentialist ethics, then the moral debt meaning can be translated as “If you want utility for person/group X, you should do B”.
Whenever people use this word “should” in a sneaky way in a debate, I always find myself reminding them that it only has meaning with respect to someone or some group’s preferences, and by glossing over exactly who’s preferences we’re talking about, people can get away with making bad arguments.
I think that’s over generalizing consequentialist ethics.
“I want to fix my car.”
″You should talk to Joe—he knows a lot about cars.”
The latter is perfectly ordinary usage, but generally not considered a moral or ethical statement.
I’m not saying that ordinary usages of the word “should” are statements of morality, rather the opposite: statements of morality can be translated into ordinary usage, and if they can’t they probably aren’t coherent statements.
“I am morally obliged to treat this person’s injury” “Why?” “Because it would stop their suffering”
Perhaps we prefer to call it a moral statement when it’s about other people’s utility functions, rather than our own. Then again, we usually don’t feel morally obliged to cater to others’ preferences except to the extent that we have a preference of our own for their preferences to be satisfied, which, thankfully, most people do.