Philippa Foot was a prominent British philosopher renowned for her work in ethics and moral philosophy. Born Philippa Ruth Bosanquet on 3rd October 1920 in Owston Ferry, Lincolnshire, she was the granddaughter of U.S. President Grover Cleveland. Her early life was marked by privilege, but she was also deeply influenced by the tumultuous events of the early 20th century. Foot pursued her education at Somerville College, Oxford, where she studied Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE), graduating in 1942.
Foot’s early career was significantly shaped by her wartime work at the Royal Institute for International Affairs, where she engaged with international issues that undoubtedly sharpened her moral perspective. After the war, she returned to Oxford, where she began her long and influential academic career. In 1947, she married the historian Michael Foot, although the marriage ended in divorce in 1960.
Foot’s contributions to philosophy are particularly notable in the field of ethics. She was a central figure in the development of virtue ethics, a school of thought that emphasises the role of character and virtue over rules or consequences in moral theory. Her work often challenged the dominant utilitarian and deontological ethical frameworks of her time. One of her most famous contributions to philosophical thought is the “Trolley Problem,” a thought experiment that explores the ethical dilemmas faced when making decisions that affect others’ lives.
In her seminal paper, “Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives” (1972), Foot argued against the Kantian view that moral judgments are categorical imperatives. She posited that moral judgements are more akin to hypothetical imperatives, which depend on a person’s desires and goals. This was a significant departure from traditional moral philosophy and has been influential in ongoing ethical debates.
Foot was also a committed teacher and mentor. She held several academic positions throughout her career, most notably at Somerville College, Oxford, where she was a Fellow and Tutor from 1949 until 1969. She also taught at the University of California, Los Angeles, where she spent a significant portion of her later career, continuing to influence students and colleagues alike with her rigorous approach to moral philosophy.
Her book “Natural Goodness” (2001) is another critical work, where she further developed her ideas on virtue ethics. In it, Foot argued that moral virtues are based on natural human capacities and needs, grounding moral philosophy in a more naturalistic and less abstract framework. This work has been highly regarded for its clarity and innovative approach to ethical theory.
Philippa Foot died on 3rd October 2010, on her 90th birthday, leaving behind a rich legacy of philosophical inquiry and ethical thought. Her work continues to be studied and respected in philosophical circles, and her influence is evident in the ongoing discussions about the nature of morality and virtue. Foot’s dedication to exploring the complexities of human ethics has made her a pivotal figure in contemporary philosophy, ensuring her place in the annals of philosophical history.
Philippa Foot’s writing in moral philosophy is marked by her critical engagement with contemporary ethical theories and her pioneering work in virtue ethics. Her major works and papers reflect her rigorous analytical approach and her commitment to grounding ethical theory in human nature and practical reason.
Early Writings and Critique of Non-Cognitivism
Foot’s early writings include her critical response to non-cognitivism, a dominant theory in mid-20th century moral philosophy which suggested that moral statements do not express propositions but emotional attitudes. In her paper “Moral Beliefs” (1958), she challenged the views of A.J. Ayer and R.M. Hare, arguing that moral judgments can be true or false and are deeply connected to human life and practices.
The Trolley Problem
One of Foot’s most enduring contributions to moral philosophy is the introduction of the “Trolley Problem” in her 1967 paper “The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect.” The thought experiment involves a moral dilemma where a person must decide whether to divert a runaway trolley onto a track where it will kill one person instead of allowing it to continue on its path where it will kill five. This problem has been extensively discussed and debated, highlighting issues of utilitarianism, deontology, and the ethical significance of intentions and consequences.
Virtue Ethics
Foot is widely recognised for her revival and development of virtue ethics, a tradition rooted in the philosophy of Aristotle. Her paper “Virtues and Vices” (1978) and the collection of essays by the same name represent a significant contribution to this field. In these works, she argued that virtues are beneficial human characteristics that enable individuals to live flourishing lives. Unlike utilitarianism and deontology, which focus on rules and consequences, Foot emphasised the importance of character and moral virtues.
“Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives”
In her influential paper “Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives” (1972), Foot contested the Kantian notion of categorical imperatives, which are moral commands that apply universally and unconditionally. Instead, she proposed that moral imperatives are more like hypothetical imperatives, which depend on an individual’s desires and goals. This paper sparked considerable debate and has been a critical text in ethical theory discussions.
“Natural Goodness”
Foot’s book “Natural Goodness” (2001) is a landmark work in moral philosophy. In it, she further developed her ideas on virtue ethics, arguing that moral virtues are based on the natural characteristics and needs of human beings. She maintained that ethical norms are grounded in the life forms of human beings, paralleling Aristotle’s view that moral virtues are tied to the nature and function of human beings. This work is notable for its attempt to bridge the gap between facts and values, a long-standing issue in ethical theory.
Later Works and Essays
Foot continued to write and influence philosophical thought throughout her career. Her essay “Rationality and Goodness” (2001) explores the relationship between rationality and moral action, challenging the idea that rationality necessarily leads to moral behaviour. Her later essays reflect her ongoing engagement with the foundations of moral philosophy and her critique of contemporary ethical theories.
The Influencers
Philippa Foot’s philosophical work was profoundly influenced by a number of key figures in the history of philosophy. Her interactions with the ideas of these philosophers helped shape her distinctive approach to ethics, leading to significant contributions to moral philosophy.
Aristotle
One of the most significant influences on Foot’s work was Aristotle. Foot’s commitment to virtue ethics can be traced back to her engagement with Aristotelian ethics. Aristotle’s emphasis on virtues as central to a flourishing life provided a foundation for Foot’s critique of modern ethical theories and her development of a virtue-based ethical framework. Like Aristotle, Foot believed that virtues are essential for achieving eudaimonia, or human flourishing, and that moral philosophy should focus on the development of good character traits rather than solely on the consequences of actions or adherence to rules.
Elizabeth Anscombe
Elizabeth Anscombe, a contemporary and friend of Foot, had a substantial impact on her philosophical development. Anscombe’s seminal paper “Modern Moral Philosophy” (1958) criticised the state of contemporary moral philosophy and called for a return to a virtue ethics approach inspired by Aristotle. Foot was deeply influenced by Anscombe’s arguments and shared her view that modern moral theories, particularly utilitarianism and Kantian deontology, were inadequate. Anscombe’s work encouraged Foot to explore the role of virtues and moral character in ethical theory.
David Hume
David Hume’s moral philosophy also influenced Foot, particularly his views on the nature of moral judgements and human sentiments. Hume’s emphasis on the role of feelings and passions in ethical life resonated with Foot’s belief that moral judgements are grounded in human nature and the practical realities of life. However, Foot diverged from Hume in significant ways, particularly in her rejection of non-cognitivism—the idea that moral statements merely express emotions rather than truth-apt propositions.
G.E.M. Anscombe and Ludwig Wittgenstein
Foot was also influenced by the philosophical methods of G.E.M. Anscombe and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein’s later philosophy, with its focus on ordinary language and the ways in which meaning is rooted in forms of life, informed Foot’s approach to moral philosophy. She adopted a similar method of examining moral language and practices to reveal underlying philosophical issues. Anscombe’s work on intention and moral psychology further shaped Foot’s thinking, particularly in her analysis of moral dilemmas like the Trolley Problem.
Immanuel Kant
While Foot was critical of Immanuel Kant’s ethical theory, particularly his concept of categorical imperatives, his work nonetheless played a crucial role in shaping her thought. Kant’s emphasis on the universality and rationality of moral principles provided a backdrop against which Foot developed her own views. Her argument that moral imperatives are more like hypothetical imperatives can be seen as a direct response to Kantian ethics. Foot’s engagement with Kant helped her articulate a vision of ethics grounded in human nature and practical reasoning.
John Stuart Mill
John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism was another significant point of reference for Foot. Although she was critical of utilitarianism’s focus on consequences as the sole determinant of moral action, engaging with Mill’s ideas helped Foot clarify her own position on the importance of virtues and moral character. Her critique of utilitarianism’s inability to account for the moral significance of intentions and character traits led her to develop a more nuanced ethical theory.
Ancient Greek Philosophers
Foot’s interest in virtue ethics also drew from a broader engagement with ancient Greek philosophers beyond Aristotle. The works of Plato and the Stoics, with their emphasis on the importance of virtue and the good life, influenced Foot’s thinking. She appreciated the way these philosophers integrated ethical theory with considerations of human psychology and the nature of the good life.
The Role of Michel Foucault
Philippa Foot’s work in moral philosophy was primarily influenced by classical and analytical traditions, and there is no significant evidence that she was directly influenced by Michel Foucault. Foucault, a French philosopher known for his critical studies of social institutions, power structures, and the history of ideas, operated within a different philosophical tradition, often referred to as continental philosophy, which is distinct from the analytical tradition in which Foot worked.
However, considering the broader intellectual landscape, it is possible to explore potential points of intersection or contrast between Foot’s and Foucault’s ideas:
Differences in Philosophical Approach
- Analytical vs. Continental Philosophy: Foot was a central figure in the analytic tradition, focusing on clear, logical argumentation and often engaging with moral issues through the lens of virtue ethics. In contrast, Foucault’s work is situated within the continental tradition, characterised by a focus on historical context, power dynamics, and the social construction of knowledge. Foot’s engagement with ethical theory was more concerned with universal principles and human nature, whereas Foucault’s work often deconstructed such concepts to reveal underlying power structures.
Potential Points of Intersection
- Critique of Modern Moral Philosophy: Both Foot and Foucault were critical of certain aspects of modern moral philosophy, though their critiques came from different angles. Foot critiqued the dominance of utilitarian and Kantian ethics, advocating instead for a return to virtue ethics rooted in human nature. Foucault, on the other hand, critiqued the ways in which moral and ethical norms are historically contingent and shaped by power relations. While Foot sought to establish a more grounded and character-based ethical system, Foucault examined how moral systems are used to control and regulate individuals and societies.
- Human Nature and Ethics: Foot’s work often centred on the idea that ethical principles are grounded in human nature and the natural capacities of human beings. Foucault’s exploration of how concepts of human nature are historically constructed and used to exert power can be seen as a contrasting perspective. Where Foot saw a foundation for ethics in human nature, Foucault might question how the concept of “human nature” is itself a product of specific historical and social contexts.
- Power and Morality: While Foot did not explicitly focus on the relationship between power and morality, her emphasis on virtues and the moral character of individuals can be juxtaposed with Foucault’s analysis of how power shapes moral norms. Foucault’s work invites a deeper consideration of how societal power dynamics influence what is considered virtuous or moral, a perspective that, if considered by Foot, might add a layer of social critique to her virtue ethics.
Contrast in Focus
- Historical vs. Normative Focus: Foot’s work was primarily normative, concerned with how individuals ought to act and what constitutes a good character. Foucault’s work was more descriptive and analytical, examining how historical conditions and power relations shape knowledge, including moral knowledge. This fundamental difference in focus means that while both philosophers dealt with ethics, they did so in markedly different ways.
- Individual Virtue vs. Social Structures: Foot focused on individual virtues and the development of moral character, whereas Foucault examined the broader social structures and institutions that define and enforce norms. Foucault’s analysis of institutions such as prisons, hospitals, and asylums reveals how societal norms are enforced, a perspective that contrasts with Foot’s more individualistic approach to ethics.
While Philippa Foot and Michel Foucault operated within different philosophical traditions and focused on different aspects of moral and ethical inquiry, a comparative analysis can reveal interesting contrasts and potential areas of dialogue. Foot’s focus on virtue ethics and human nature provides a normative framework for understanding morality, whereas Foucault’s analysis of power and social institutions offers a critical perspective on how moral norms are constructed and maintained. Exploring these differences and potential intersections can enrich our understanding of both philosophers’ contributions to moral philosophy.
Legacy
Philippa Foot’s writings have left a lasting impact on moral philosophy. Her clear and rigorous arguments, combined with her commitment to a naturalistic and practical approach to ethics, have influenced a wide range of philosophical discussions. Her work on virtue ethics has provided a robust alternative to consequentialist and deontological theories, and her thought experiments, like the Trolley Problem, continue to be central to ethical debates.
Foot’s legacy is reflected in the continued relevance and discussion of her ideas in philosophical literature, ensuring her place as one of the most important moral philosophers of the 20th century. Her writings not only challenged prevailing theories but also provided new pathways for understanding the complexities of moral life.
KEEP US ALIVE and join us in helping to bring reality and decency back by SUBSCRIBING to our Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQ1Ll1ylCg8U19AhNl-NoTg AND SUPPORTING US where you can: Award Winning Independent Citizen Media Needs Your Help. PLEASE SUPPORT US FOR JUST £2 A MONTH https://dorseteye.com/donate/
