The issue between Mrs. Foot and Immanuel Kant is this: does the reason why one ought to do something always lie in expected, desired consequences, so that the command to do it is hypothetical? Mrs. Foot argues that the answer is “yes,” and that any alternative use of “ought” is unintelligible. I think that her argument for this claim is stronger when it is directed at the intuitionists than when it is directed at Kant. An analogy with logic, which is full of categorical imperatives, supports Kant’s position against Mrs. Foot.
Beck, Lewis White
"Mrs. Foot on the Sufficiency of Hypothetical Imperatives,"
Philosophic Exchange: Vol. 2
, Article 17.
Available at: http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/phil_ex/vol2/iss1/17