Foot: Morality As A System Of Hypothetical Imperatives

[Amity]

Thank you for reviving Philippa Foot.

@Banno

This is one of Foot’s more interesting articles. Her topic, the hypothetical imperative, is the notion Kant juxtaposes with the categorical imperative in order that he might hang the whole of morality on the latter.

Grateful for the links to the article, along with the SEP. Your enthusiasm has stirred and shaken me (yeah!) to visit her and the others from the Quartet:
Mapping The Quartet

@Banno

Anyone want to go through it step by step?

I hope to follow this discussion and be enlightened…or something.

To help me along, I found this:
Philippa Foot: Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives - YouTube

This video introduces the student to a strand of Foot’s thinking that opposes Kant’s notion of the Categorical Imperative. We often do what we ‘ought to’ because we have been brought up that way - not to lie for example. Such commands may appear categorical, but someone who acts against them is not necessarily irrational.

This series is developed by Liz McKinnell for Women In Parenthesis. More resources available at our website.

www.womeninparenthesis.co.uk

The video simplifies in 13:25 mins:
Philippa Foot 0:34
Kant’s Basic Rule 1:28
Hypothetical Imperative 6:18
Questions 11:59

I admit to being as intrigued by the 4 philosophers’ relationships. Particularly the personal one between Foot and Murdoch. But that is another story.

I understand that all 4 were exponents of ‘virtue ethics’ but did not always agree.

I’m always fascinated by philosophers and their theories of the what, why, and wherefore of ‘goodness’.

The theory-practice gap. I’m thinking of Iris Murdoch here. Fascinating tension.

First, I need to be clear on what Foot is actually saying or meaning. Hope to catch up…