We argue for three main claims. First, the sentence ‘A and B ought to φ and ψ’ can express what we a call a joint-ought claim: the claim that the plurality A and B ought to φ and ψ respectively. Second, the truth-value of this joint-ought claim can differ from the truth-value of the pair of claims ‘A ought to φ’ and ‘B ought to ψ.’ This is because what A and B jointly ought to do can diverge from what they individually ought to do: it may be true that A and B jointly ought to φ and ψ respectively, yet false that A ought to φ and false that B ought to ψ; and vice-versa. Third, either of two prominent semantic analyses of ‘ought’—Mark Schroeder’s relational semantics, and Angelika Kratzer’s modal semantics—can model joint-ought claims and this difference in truth-value.

我们主张三个主要主张。首先，“A 和 B 应该φ和ψ”这句话可以表达我们所谓的共同应该的主张：复数 A 和 B 应该分别φ和ψ的主张。其次，这个共同应该的主张的真值可能与“A 应该φ”和“B 应该ψ”这对主张的真值不同。这是因为 A 和 B 共同应该做什么可能与他们各自应该做什么不同：A 和 B 共同应该分别φ和ψ可能是真的， 然而，A 应该φ 和 B 应该ψ是错误的;反之亦然。第三，对“应该”的两个突出语义分析——Mark Schroeder 的关系语义和 Angelika Kratzer 的模态语义——中的任何一个都可以模拟联合应该声明和这种真值差异。