Question During a heated argument about social placement resulting from speech, a close friend of mine asked me "WHY should I speak correctly?" The question was an inclination that he wanted to be persuaded by my answer, more so that just asking for a fact on the matter. As I answered him, he started to dismiss my opinions, question everything I posed with a simple phrase: "But if I CHOOSE to speak improperly, and I know I can switch back to proper speach (he tried to make it seem to me he had prior knowledge of more enhanced words that he could use when I know he did not (he is pretty dull)), then shouldn't it not be held against me to do so?" I disagree with him. If one knows how to speak properly, they should not need to be persuaded into doing so, they should just do so, knowing it is correct and proper to do so. Can one of you please afford an opinion on this argument.

Accepted:
October 14, 2006

Comments

Yes, issues of speech, morality (and politics) can be rather agitating. Perhaps one way of getting at the issue here is to ask what you mean by "should" when you say "should just do so" and what your friend means by "shouldn't" (and "held against") when he asks with regard to speaking improperly, "shouldn't it not be held against me"?

The reason I ask is that philosophers distinguish between what might be called (1) "instrumental" uses of the word "should" and (2) "moral" uses of the word.

So, for example, one might say, "To support the load presented by the trucks and cars that drive over it, you should use materials of such and such strength when building the bridge." Or, similarly, "In order to secure your investments, you shouldn't invest in that firm." Or, "In order to cure that disease, you should prescribe this medicine." All these are instrumental uses of the word "should." They're instrumental because they talk about the means that ought to be employed to achieve a certain end. Accordingly, they have the form, "In order to yield result Y, means X should be employed" or "In order to yield result Y, means X should be avoided." Sometimes statements like this are calleld "hypothetical imperatives."

But moral uses of the word should are of a different sort. They have forms like these: "In order to be a moral person, one should act in X manner"; or "In order to perform the morally proper action, one should do X." Sometimes this sort of should is expressed in what philosophers calll a "categorical" imperative." In those cases the imperatives take a form like this: You should "do X."

For myself, it seems to me that you and your friend may be talking past one another in this way. It sounds as though (of course, I may be wrong) your friend is making a moral point: "It would be wrong to judge improper speech as morallty objectionable." (Here I take it, by the way, that you mean by "improper" speech, speech that is ungrammatical or that uses words in non-idiomatic or definitionally incorrect ways. Improper speech in the sense of obscene or offensive speech is clearly objectionable in many contexts.) While you, on the other hand, are making the instrumental point that "If one wants to be understood clearly, or thought of as educated and refined, or judged to be competent and successful in one's job, or popular, or something like that, then one should speak properly."

In light of instrumental considerations, there's nothing immoral about speaking improperly, and there's no moral imperative to speak properly (by common standards of "proper"); but doing so often has its advantageous. (But note, also, that there are certain contexts where improper speech can have its advantages, too--certain social situations, for example, where a bit of ungrammatical or salty speech can lubricate social interactions or establish one's membership in a group.)

From the point of view of moral considerations, respecting the autonomy of one who chooses to speak improperly means (in most contexts) refraining from condemning that person's speech morally.