what's the grammar structure of "ought to" [duplicate]

have to
must
should
ought

I found a lot of examples with explanations on using this words applying to people, but not to inanimate objects. In the case of inanimate objects, such explanations as “obligatory”, “moral correctness”, “advise” etc. does not work.
What the verbs should be used in the next sentences?

The car _______ turn when the driver turns the steering wheel.
The car _______ not start moving spontaneously.
The (computer) program _______ solve the equation.
If an error occures, the program _______ indicate a message.

I think, different variants are possible and they have different meanings.

Solution 1:

Must and should are English modal auxiliary verbs. The other English modal auxiliary verbs are may, might, shall, will, would, can, and could.

Ought (to) and have to are periphrastic modal auxiliary idioms. Some others include be likely (to), be able to, be required (to), be possible (that), and be expected.

All modals, whether periphrastic or not, have two kinds of meaning: Deontic and Epistemic.

Deontic modality has to do with obligations, permissions, and affordances conceived in a stratified social network:

• She may go to the dance with you, but she has to be back by midnight.

Deontic modality doesn't apply to things, outside metaphors. Things need Epistemic modality,
which has to do with possibility and necessity, from logical and practical/mechanical causes:

• The ball may pass through either gate, but it has to go in this hole in order to score.

Epistemic must and have to mean 'necessary', but deontically they mean 'obligated to'.

Epistemic should and ought to mean 'likely, probable'; deontically they mean 'morally obliged to'.

Epistemic can, could, may, and might refer to possibilities; deontically they refer to permissions.