When an entity 'fails' to do an action, does it imply that they 'ought' to do that action?

Question

For example:

High-functioning psychopaths often fail to recognize the thoughts and feelings of the people they hurt.

In this example, there is no intention to do the action (verb) by the person doing the action or there is an indifference to that action and yet the sentence implies that they tried, or at least should try to do that action. Another example:

The company failed to act ethically to its employees in developing countries.

Same situation, there is no intention by the entity to do the action and yet the sentence implies that they tried to do that action.

Does the context of 'failed' imply that they tried to do the action or does the sentence imply that they should have tried to do the action? Or can it imply one or the other or both?

Answer 1

Merriam-Webster provides several definitions for "fail." Three of these pertain to your usage of the word:

2a. to fall short

2b. to be or become absent or inadequate

2c. to be unsuccessful

Usage of fail by any of these definitions necessarily implies a normative claim:

• 2a. "fall[ing] short" implies an unreached target
• 2b. "inadequate" implies an unmet standard of adequacy
• 2c. "unsuccessful" implies an unmet standard of success.

However, they do not necessarily imply that someone "tried" to do something and did not achieve it. They only imply that someone did not meet some predefined goal or standard, irrespective of whether they tried to or not.

This is evident in your examples:

High-functioning psychopaths often fail to recognize the thoughts and feelings of the people they hurt.

As you state, high-functioning psychopaths may not necessarily try to recognize thoughts and feelings, but the sentence is stating that recognition of thoughts and feelings is a standard of adequacy which psychopaths do not meet.

The company failed to act ethically to its employees in developing countries.

It does not necessarily follow from this sentence that the company tried to act ethically. It follows only that the writer views acting ethically as a normative standard against which companies may be judged, and that this company did not meet that standard, irrespective of whether it tried to or not.

Answer 2

You are actually asking two questions here: does "failed to do such and such" mean both that they tried to do it, and also that they ought to do it. I think user770884 answers the first question well -- "failed to do such and such" does not at all imply that you tried to. My mother often pointed out that I failed to take out the garbage. This was not because I lacked the skills, but that I lacked the willingness to try.

As to the second question, does "failed to do such and such" imply that you ought to do it? Again, I think the answer is no. "Hitler failed to defeat Russia during operation Barbarossa" does not tell us that he ought to have done so.

In fact even here there are two sub questions. Would we have expected him to have done so, in the sense that his failure was a surprise? Or should he have done so because it would be a moral or ethical failure to do so (reference again user770884's great comment on this.) And again, it implies neither.

When I failed to take out the garbage my mother may have thought it a moral failing on my part, but she was not particularly surprised.