Philippa Foots Hypothetical Imperatives Essays -- Ethics Kant Philoso

Philippa Foots Hypothetical ImperativesPhilippa Foot finds trouble with the arguments of Kant, who said that it was necessary to distinguish moral notions from suppositious imperatives. Although this may have become an unquestionable truth, Foot says that this is a misunderstanding. Kant defined a hypothetical imperative as an action that addresses what should or ought to be d genius. He believed that the necessity of performing a certain action was based on other desires. This particular action would only be important if it was beneficial for other reason. It is prudent that a man feel the responsibility to achieve his own wants. However, Kant speaks of a second group of imperatives known as categorical imperatives. These be actions which are important in themselves, without considerations of any other matter. At a glance it appears that Kant is accurate in saying that moral judgments are categorical imperatives. Perhaps the ruff way to analyze this is to break down the uses o f the words should and ought. For example, consider a man in a patronage suit looking lost a railroad station on a Friday afternoon. One would point the man to the train that will take the man home, assuming the man in the business suit was on his way home. If however, that man is headed somewhere else, then the statement should be withdrawn. Our should is unsupported. However, the use of should and ought in moral contexts is different. The situation changes if the man being aware is receiving suggestions regarding a moral judgment. An opinion on a moral judgment does not need to be backed up because in essence it is not an opinion. Rather, it is a strict rule in which the considerations of the man do not matter. One need not ... ...w a matter of etiquette or moral judgment without questioning why he must do it, this same man can refuse to follow the rules until a reason to follow is stated. This leaves us with one conclusion, which is best stated by Philippa Foot Kant and his fo llowers defend having morals in the group of categorical imperatives are relying on an illusion, as if trying to mete out the moral ought a magic force. Society is losing grip as a result of lacking explanation of moral law. There is no hard bear witness backing moral judgment and society is losing touch with doing whats right. Foot claims that we maintain moral judgments to be categorical imperatives simply because in doing so we are compel to care about the issue. Analyzing this from a broader stance, we are conditioning ourselves to believe in something that will hopefully influence the betterment of society.