Last week, a client sent me a 16-page document to edit. Several people at this company disagreed with the usage of “ought” in the document (which appeared at least a dozen times), recommending it be replaced with “should”.
In actuality, I don’t find much difference between the two, at least not in the sense of indicating obligation.
Compare these two sentences:
- You should go to the store with me to buy some hot peppers.
- You ought to go to the store with me to buy some hot peppers.
Fundamentally, these two sentences seem to differ little. Even if there is a difference, it’ll be inconsequential.
Certainly, “should” is more popular than “ought to”, as evidenced by this chart on Google:
But just because something is less popular doesn’t make it wrong, nor does it mean that it’s defined differently.
Dictionaries aren’t much help in coming to a definitive conclusion either. Oxford Dictionary, for example, recommends that we “reserve ought for expressing obligation, duty, or necessity, and use should for expressing suitability or appropriateness”. Merriam Webster, on the other hand, defines should and ought similarly in that each means “to express obligation”.
Granted, dictionaries don’t decide what words mean; they only record how they’re used.
I think that when it comes down to it, you could probably get away with either one in nearly every circumstance. Don’t sweat about it.
