# Furthering Philippa Foot

**URL:** <https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/furthering-philippa-foot/1367>\
**Category:** Ethics\
**Created:** [June 15, 2026, 10:56pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/furthering-philippa-foot/1367 "2026-06-15T22:56:26Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 236

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Banno](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/banno/32/55_2.png) [@Banno](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Banno)\
**Post date:** [June 21, 2026, 8:50pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/furthering-philippa-foot/1367/236 "2026-06-21T20:50:42Z")

</div>

I don’t wish to close the thread; I would have it return to the topic of the OP. Aas it is, yes, the logic being used is appalling.

“The fox lost its foot” is descriptive. That it is bad that the fox lost it’s foot is an evaluation that it expresses a preference for the fox not having lost it’s foot - it chooses between two situations and expresses a preference for one.

It does this by predicating over a sentence, and so is a second-order sentence.

It would not on most accounts be a moral evaluation.

Foot addressed the difference between to two directly in the article being considered in the thread [https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/foot-morality-as-a-system-of-hypothetical-imperatives](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/foot-morality-as-a-system-of-hypothetical-imperatives). The distinction is not as clear-cut as some think.

---

_[View the full topic](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/furthering-philippa-foot/1367)._