(An earlier draft of this comment appeared in my blog on Wednesday, 12 March 2008.)

I vastly prefer using words other than "should."

In my mind's ear (before I put on more empathetic ears), "should" suggests duty, obligation, a denial of choice and even a denial of responsibility. By my standards, contrary to many assumptions that seem prevalent to me, "should" and authentic responsibility mutually exclude each other.

Long before I developed my current philosophy on the subject, it struck me with how much exasperation I would hear others tell me, "You should do this."

Now I feel far more satisfaction with my explanation of why I reacted that way.

By my standards, "should," like reward, remains (often implicitly) part of the domination matrix of concepts. When I vividly appreciate the need-satisfying, life-serving, self-fulfilling reasons why I want to take an action, I don't need to "should" myself to choose to take that action.

For me, "should" comes out of the authoritarian toolbox. As I hear it, "should" involves an (often implicitly) authoritarian attempt to manipulate another - or even oneself - to satisfy the wishes of some "authority." "Should" aims to keep the target of the manipulation unaware of that target's own, authentic needs. Instead, "should" aims to keep the target of the manipulation focused on a sense of duty or obligation to do what the "authority" demands.

I love how Marshall Rosenberg often says (and I'm quoting this from memory), "Those who remain clearly aware of their own feelings and needs don't make good slaves."

Frequently, when I'm told that I "should" do something, inwardly and initially, I react with defensiveness or even rebellion. I had reacted this way even before I learned about what I now regard as the authoritarian implications of "should." (With a deep breath and careful reflection, now I like to choose a different strategy for responding to such a "should." I bring up my initial reaction for a reason, though, which follows.) When I internalize it, such a "should" doesn't meet my need for autonomy.

So I would not want to tell a person that one "should" feel or do anything.

(It intrigues me how much we're taught that we "should" or "shouldn't" feel this or that. By my standards, our authentic feelings require no special "justification." At any given moment, we feel what we feel.)

I react to the word "enough" in much the same way that I react to the word "should." In my mind's ear, "enough" typically implies that "Some authority dictates what should be 'enough.'"

Yet I experience little interest in what (according to some implicitly authoritarian standard) qualifies as "enough." By contrast, I experience profound interest in what meets each person's authentic needs.

By my standards, "should" and "enough" qualify as species of moralistic value judgment. I find that by expressing what I call life-serving value judgments, I far more deeply fulfill my needs.

In my view, each of us embodies a need to contribute to others. I don't mean this in any sacrificial sense. I want individuals to contribute to the well-being of others only when by doing so they consciously contribute to the satisfaction of their own needs.

In my judgment, opportunities abound to contribute to life by doing exactly that.