Philippa Foot on Hypothetical and Categorical Imperatives

Philippa Foot entered the history of 20th-century academic ethics primarily as the author of the article “The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect” (1967), in which she first introduced the “trolley problem” - a thought experiment that has been frequently used to justify various moral intuitions ever since. However, other works by Foot are also well-known in the British-American philosophy. This article examines two earlier works by the British philosopher, “In Defense of the Hypothetical Imperative” (1971) and “Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives” (1972). In these works, Foot addresses a large number of quite diverse issues, but her main line of reasoning is a critique of Immanuel Kant’s doctrine of categorical and hypothetical imperatives and is aimed at debunking of this dichotomy. This article highlights the most significant theses put forward by Foot and reproduces her key arguments. On the basis of everyday language the British philosopher compares hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives with the imperatives of etiquette and morality, respectively, and seeks to show that the requirements of etiquette have the force of a non-hypothetical imperative in some situations. On the other hand, Foot questions the extent to which our perception of moral imperatives as categorical imperatives, i.e., those that we must follow regardless of our interests and desires, is justified. She also addresses the issue of the connection between moral beliefs and moral motivation, putting the necessity of this connection into question. This article critically analyzes Foot’s main line of reasoning, challenging the validity of several arguments and indicating the necessity to clarify certain positions as well as demonstrating that Foot’s criticism of Kant misses its goals in many respects.