Philippa Foot in her text “Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives” argues against the claim that moral judgments cannot be hypothetical imperatives, first presented by the philosopher Immanuel Kant. As found in her introduction on page 68-69 of the textbook, her argument is that moral judgments are categorical rather than hypothetical. But before one can explain her argument one must define and explain what hypothetical and categorical imperatives are. Kant himself wrote all imperatives command either hypothetically or categorically. He says that hypothetical imperatives “present the practical necessity of a possible action as a means to achieving something else which one desires.” In other words they he presents the idea that an action is a means to an end. On the other side of the coin. “The categorical imperatives
…show more content…
He would not be indifferent to such this as suffering and injustice. By first believing in such things a liberty and justice you are indirectly following the moral frameworks because one has to be rational and see how these frameworks support your beliefs. You are indirectly following one. A moral man ought to have certain ends as in itself reason to adopt them. If he is indeed a moral man then he cares about such things not just because he ought to. If he was an immoral man he may deny he had any reason to follow this moral demand. They are relying on the idea that the ought to forces a man to do the moral thing. By treating everything as an and within itself you are thinking that there is no further motive to complete an action. By thinking that use of moral judgments as categorical is a reason for adhering to them, you are submitting to the idea that continuing to do something will not result in an end in itself. Every action is independent of itself. Moral rules do not in themselves give a reason for making you follow
He would not be indifferent to such this as suffering and injustice. By first believing in such things a liberty and justice you are indirectly following the moral frameworks because one has to be rational and see how these frameworks support your beliefs. You are indirectly following one. A moral man ought to have certain ends as in itself reason to adopt them. If he is indeed a moral man then he cares about such things not just because he ought to. If he was an immoral man he may deny he had any reason to follow this moral demand. They are relying on the idea that the ought to forces a man to do the moral thing. By treating everything as an and within itself you are thinking that there is no further motive to complete an action. By thinking that use of moral judgments as categorical is a reason for adhering to them, you are submitting to the idea that continuing to do something will not result in an end in itself. Every action is independent of itself. Moral rules do not in themselves give a reason for making you follow