## The Futility of "Should" I believe that "should" is a nearly useless concept, a linguistic tool often wielded to encourage actions without offering any genuine reward, or worse, to instill [[shame]] for non-compliance. It's a word that frequently sets up a lose-lose scenario, where adherence is met with indifference and non-compliance with negativity. This inherent imbalance makes "should" a poor motivator, especially when compared to the power of intrinsic desires and personal values. ### The Illusion of Obligation For instance, if you do what someone insists you "should" do, like "you should always be early," there's typically no positive reinforcement or acknowledgment; your action is merely considered an expected baseline, not an achievement. You're simply meeting a standard, and there's no recognition for the effort or discipline involved. This lack of positive feedback diminishes the incentive to repeat the behavior. Conversely, if you don't adhere to the "should," you're often made to feel guilty, burdened by the weight of failing an external, and often arbitrary, standard. The focus shifts from the potential benefits of the action to the negative consequences of not performing it. This creates a climate of fear and obligation, rather than one of genuine motivation. Even when self-directed, telling yourself "I should start that project" or "I should eat healthier" rarely translates into immediate, enthusiastic action. More often, the "should" itself breeds internal resistance or procrastination, feeling like an oppressive imposition rather than an authentic, internal drive stemming from personal desire or clear benefit. The internal monologue becomes a battleground, with the "should" representing an unwelcome demand and the self resisting the perceived imposition. This internal conflict drains energy and undermines the very goals the "should" is intended to promote. ## The Antagonism of "Should" and Self-Interest This approach directly contradicts principles like those found in [[Objectivism]], which posits that individuals are fundamentally, and rightly, motivated by their own well-being and rational self-interest. Objectivism emphasizes the importance of pursuing values and acting in ways that contribute to one's own flourishing. "Should," however, attempts to bypass this core human motivation by trying to compel people to act without any discernible reward or clear connection to their personal flourishing, offering no tangible benefit to their individual well-being. It essentially asks individuals to act against their own self-interest, at least in the short term, without providing a compelling reason to do so. ### The Reliance on Fear The sole, flimsy motivation it relies upon is the implicit or explicit threat of shame, guilt, or social disapproval. This is a negative reinforcement strategy, relying on the avoidance of pain rather than the pursuit of pleasure. While this fear-based tactic might achieve superficial compliance in the short term – perhaps prompting someone to reluctantly complete a task solely to avoid criticism or judgment – it eventually loses its effectiveness. The initial fear response can diminish over time, making the "should" less potent. Over time, individuals may become desensitized to the shame, grow resentful of the constant pressure, or worse, learn to shape their entire existence around fear-avoidance, making choices primarily to prevent negative outcomes rather than to pursue genuine fulfillment and happiness. This can lead to a life of stagnation, where individuals are constantly reacting to external pressures rather than proactively pursuing their own goals and desires. The focus shifts from growth and achievement to mere survival, limiting potential and stifling creativity. ## The Superiority of Intrinsic Motivation In any contest of motivators, such as [[Fear vs Love]] (or, more broadly, externally imposed obligation versus intrinsic desire and pursuit of value), fear, as leveraged by the "should" construct, might seem to win in the immediate instance by compelling action through pressure. A parent might use "should" to get a child to clean their room, or an employer might use it to get an employee to meet a deadline. However, this is a hollow and ultimately destructive victory. Fear-driven compliance is unsustainable; it erodes genuine motivation, creativity, and overall well-being. The child might clean the room, but they won't develop a sense of responsibility or pride in their environment. The employee might meet the deadline, but they'll likely resent the pressure and be less likely to go above and beyond in the future. Actions rooted in [[love]], passion, or a clear understanding of personal benefit, on the other hand, foster growth, engagement, and lasting satisfaction. When individuals are motivated by their own desires and values, they are more likely to be persistent, creative, and resilient in the face of challenges. They are also more likely to experience a sense of fulfillment and purpose in their lives. Thus, "should," with its foundation in unearned obligation and the threat of negative emotion, ultimately fails as a constructive or healthy motivator for human behavior. It's a short-term tactic that undermines long-term well-being and personal growth. ### Exceptions to the Rule There are 2 exceptions where I believe the word should is acceptable. First, "I believe everything is how it should be", which is a statement of acceptance and a recognition of the present moment. This perspective can be a source of peace and allows one to move forward without dwelling on the past or wishing things were different. Second, "I believe you should do what you think is best". This is not an external imposition, but rather an encouragement to act in accordance with one's own judgment and values. It's a call for self-reliance and the pursuit of one's own best interests, which is a far more powerful and sustainable motivator than the empty promise of "should."