Eleanor
Diamond Member
This is such an awesome thread. What an amazing group of people.
I don't know if this will be a contribution or not, but just in case: a philosophical digression....
So what about these "should have's?"
I have come to the conclusion that it is not only totally useless, but actually conceptually incoherent to try to do this. The simple reason is this - to say that we should do something is to say something pre-scriptive - that is it is essentially to make a judgement BEFORE the action in question. Saying "I should do X" AFTER I have done it or failed to do it doesn't actually make any sense. If I say, "I should do X," it needs to be true that, "I am able to do X." If I am NOT able to do X, I might wish or want to do it, but it wouldn't be right to say,"I should do it." That would be what one of my professors used to call "an abuse of language."
In general when talking about human beings and social relations, "should have" is not a very useful or meaningful formulation. The ONLY exception to this rule I've found is this: in a situation where there is a clear outcome to be achieved, and a limited practical set of ways to achieve it, and a practical error that was made. So, "I should have set the parking brake before jacking up the car to change the tire" makes sense in a way that "I should have stood up to my abuser," or "I shouldn't have been born" just CAN'T. So when the "should have" indicates a practical mistake, it makes sense. When "should have" indicates a moral mistake, it doesn't make any sense. I admit this is confusing (and I am trained to be an expert in this kind of thing, and it is hard for me to sort it out, so sorry if this is all really really obscure.) It is more confusing because "should not have" IS a moral judgment we can make retroactively - but only about actions that were clearly morally reprehensible, not about actions taken with good intentions that did not work. Who knows what "would have" happened? And if you don't know what would have happened (as you do in the practical cases) then you don't have grounds to second guess.
I'm pretty sure this is the best any of us can do in any circumstances. We can always do the first part. We don't always get the opportunity for the second, but we can cultivate the intention...
I don't know if this will be a contribution or not, but just in case: a philosophical digression....
I have been thinking about this impulse to make conditional moral judgements about the past thing recently, that is to try to say "I should have..." This is different than saying "What X did was wrong." "X did the right thing." I think those kinds of judgments are legit and o.k. but they are also pretty limited. Most actions in the past are NOT clearly right or wrong, better or worse, most just are what they are, and it is only in rare instances that we can pull some action(s) out and say with any confidence "that was right, and this was wrong." Was it wrong that I let my daughter go to school late? Was it wrong that I had broccoli for dinner last night? Was it wrong that I bought a new car? Was it wrong that I didn't send a letter? Who the hell knows? So except for those rare instances of particular actions in particular situations that we can confidently say were right or wrong - most of it is murky as the Mississippi river after a heavy rain. There is just no way to know.which is silly of course because you cannot wish it away, and life is beautiful and a gift, but putting up with all their crap makes it hard to see that it's worth it at times.
So what about these "should have's?"
I have come to the conclusion that it is not only totally useless, but actually conceptually incoherent to try to do this. The simple reason is this - to say that we should do something is to say something pre-scriptive - that is it is essentially to make a judgement BEFORE the action in question. Saying "I should do X" AFTER I have done it or failed to do it doesn't actually make any sense. If I say, "I should do X," it needs to be true that, "I am able to do X." If I am NOT able to do X, I might wish or want to do it, but it wouldn't be right to say,"I should do it." That would be what one of my professors used to call "an abuse of language."
In general when talking about human beings and social relations, "should have" is not a very useful or meaningful formulation. The ONLY exception to this rule I've found is this: in a situation where there is a clear outcome to be achieved, and a limited practical set of ways to achieve it, and a practical error that was made. So, "I should have set the parking brake before jacking up the car to change the tire" makes sense in a way that "I should have stood up to my abuser," or "I shouldn't have been born" just CAN'T. So when the "should have" indicates a practical mistake, it makes sense. When "should have" indicates a moral mistake, it doesn't make any sense. I admit this is confusing (and I am trained to be an expert in this kind of thing, and it is hard for me to sort it out, so sorry if this is all really really obscure.) It is more confusing because "should not have" IS a moral judgment we can make retroactively - but only about actions that were clearly morally reprehensible, not about actions taken with good intentions that did not work. Who knows what "would have" happened? And if you don't know what would have happened (as you do in the practical cases) then you don't have grounds to second guess.
Own up to my shit with them and hopefully help to set them on a course for healing.
I'm pretty sure this is the best any of us can do in any circumstances. We can always do the first part. We don't always get the opportunity for the second, but we can cultivate the intention...