Philippa Foot finds trouble with the arguments of Kant, who said that it was necessary to distinguish moral judgments from hypothetical 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 done. 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 another 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 are 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 best way to analyze this...