# Foot: Morality As A System Of Hypothetical Imperatives **URL:** https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/foot-morality-as-a-system-of-hypothetical-imperatives/1401 **Category:** Ethics **Created:** [June 18, 2026, 10:38pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/foot-morality-as-a-system-of-hypothetical-imperatives/1401 "2026-06-18T22:38:59Z") **Posts on this page:** 1 **Showing post:** 92
### Author: ![Amity](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eada6e/32.png) [@Amity](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Amity) #### Post date: [June 28, 2026, 5:03pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/foot-morality-as-a-system-of-hypothetical-imperatives/1401/92 "2026-06-28T17:03:19Z")
Thanks @Banno for your summary (post 63). An excerpt: > [@Banno](#): > > - Foot breaks down the presumed distinction between “should” and “ought”, showing that these do not align with the hypothetical and categorical imperative. > - She uses this to undermine the supposed distinction between moral and amoral imperatives, using etiquette and club rules as her foil. > - She cites the “amoral man” to show a gap between both amoral and moral imperatives and the act; there is no “binding force” here. > - She reinforces this by contrasting it to _falling_, where there is such a “binding force”. > - She outlines the psychological disquiet experienced by some in this realisation; some have a psychological need for morality to be as binding as falling. But that need is not sufficient Thought I’d use this as an entry point to express some thoughts re: ‘etiquette’, societal and moral expectations and their interplay in terms of ‘binding’ or ‘acceptance’. The different ways of ‘falling’ - how we are ‘held’ tightly close or pushed away, as in ‘punished’. The psychological need for certainty found in strong, formal absolutism. The apparent attraction or ‘inescapability’ of a categorical imperative. Foot, like others, is caught up in the changing winds of war. Not only in Oxford, England, but in France, post-WWII, society is changing. [May 68 - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_68) Foot had an aristocratic and privileged background with the usual expectations of what it meant to be a woman or should I say ‘lady’. How to be and act to catch the proper and fitting gentleman. Not to look intellectual, for starters. Foot knows about the workings of ‘etiquette’ as a compelling norm of power and control. A social guide but more than that. It can be action‑guiding, — and yet not binding in the Kantian sense. Foot studied and worked alongside others who were not part of the mould, who were not ‘comme il faut’ - conformists to the status quo. Conscientious objectors of war were prime examples testing and breaking social expectations and mores. Women’s roles were shifting. Such perceived ‘failure’ in showing a ‘fitting’ character, nature or sexuality, came with penalties. In this context, ‘etiquette’, is not trivial. It’s a way of showing how people are held by norms — by class, by religion, by ‘how things are done’ — and yet, can refuse them without falling into chaotic irrationality, even when so accused. We can see the political undercurrent of radicalism. Foot is perhaps more subtle in her philosophical argumentation. Gently dismantling the idea that moral authority must be absolute. We might call her a ‘conscientious objector’ who does not ‘fall’ into obedience but stands against the prevailing winds. This article can be viewed as a subtle defence of moral pluralism and moral courage, smuggled in through an apparently trivial example of ‘how it’s done’. Moral action, then, is not obedience to an abstract law but taking a certain stance or approach to living — getting on with human life in a humane manner. There is more to be said about, e.g. the civilisation or criminalisation of the ‘fallen’ or those who would have them fall in battlegrounds. The civility of wearing suits in the White House… --- _[View the full topic](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/foot-morality-as-a-system-of-hypothetical-imperatives/1401)._