Philosopher:  Nations are not literally persons; they have no thoughts or feelings, and, literally speaking, they per...

Are there more than two ways - literal and metaphorical - to interpret things? If literally speaking it is false to think of a nation as having moral rights and responsibilities, then wouldn't the metaphorical way of interpreting a nation in those terms be the only alternative left? And in so far as the "should" versus the "is" are concerned, i.e. prescriptive versus descriptive, the line of differentiation between a necessary/required condition which is a "must" and a "should" statement is infinitesimal. In the context of the stimulus, for a nation to survive, its people are required to attribute to it falsehoods. Is that not equivalent to stating for a nation to survive, its people "should" attribute to it falsehoods? PLEASE, help especially with this idea of distinguishing between "must" and "should"? Thank you