'should not have to'

Question

I should not have to do it.I think that should not is enough to mean the same thing or what is a meaning of 'should not have to' phrase?Thank you so much as usual in advance.

GPY · Accepted Answer

"should not have to (do something)" means "should not be obliged/required to (do something)".

I'm sure you are familiar with this meaning of "have to", but you may not have recognised it embedded there.

Hans51 · Answer

Thank you so much but I am still confused with this expression because here the meaning of 'should' also is right thing or obligation like you should study English! And then here both should and have to express obligation and is it an emphasis or should is used for possibility or imagined situation or something?

You should go now.
You have to go now.
You should have to go now.

Is there a degree of intensity and if so, which one is the strongest?

Thank you so much again.

CalifJim · Answer

Hans51You should go now.

It would be a good idea for you to go now.
It is advisable for you to go now.
The right thing for you to do now is to go.

Hans51You have to go now.

You must go now.
You are required to go now.
You cannot stay.
You are not permitted to stay.

Hans51You should have to go now.

"should have to" doesn't work well in this case, but here is the meaning, strange though it is:

It would be a good idea for someone to make it a requirement that you go now.
It would be fair and just if someone made you go now.
It is advisable that you be obliged to go now.
It is advisable that you be made to go now.

Hans51I should not have to do it.

It is unjust that I must do it.
It is not fair that I am being made to do it.
I don't think it's right for me to be required to do it.

CJ

Hans51 · Answer

Thank you so much and then can we say that 'should have to' is stronger than 'have to' in a degree of intensity or although 'have to' is stronger than 'should', can we not compare 'should have to' with 'have to' as to a degree of intensity or can we say that 'should have to' is an emphasized expression, compared to the other two expressions?

CalifJim · Answer

Hans51then can we say that 'should have to' is stronger than 'have to' in a degree of intensity

No. I don't think you have it exactly right.

When used as single expressions (just should alone, just have to alone), should is weaker because it is just advice while have to is an obligation. If you should do something, it's a good idea to do it. If you have to do something, it's a requirement to do it.

When you combine the two ideas, you can only combine them one way. should goes first, then have to. But the two basic concepts do not lose their identities when combined. should still involves the idea of what it is a good idea to do, what it is right to do. have to still involves obligations, requirements.

Hans51can we say that 'should have to' is an emphasized expression, compared to the other two expressions?

No. As explained above, should have to combines two ideas; it is not just a more intense form of either of those two ideas. Note the color correspondences below:

Passengers should have to pass through metal detectors before they board the plane.
~ In my opinion it is [a good idea / the right thing to do / advisable] that there be a [requirement / obligation / rule] that passengers pass through metal detectors before they board the plane.

Note that the paraphrase may be slightly different in the negative case (should not have to):

Mr. Uspensky believed that he should not have to pay for the item because it was defective.
~ In Mr. Uspensky's opinion it was not [right / fair / just / a good idea] that he be [required / obliged] to pay for the item because it was defective.

CJ

'should not have to'

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions