SACE Stage 2 Philosophy flashcards

32 cards. Read the term and the definition here. The deck at the top of this page is optional.

Validity

A property of argument form: if the premises were true, the conclusion could not be false. Validity does not require the premises to actually be true.

Soundness

An argument is sound when it is valid and all its premises are actually true. Soundness guarantees the conclusion is true, unlike validity alone.

A priori knowledge

Knowledge justified independently of sensory experience, such as mathematical truths or definitional claims. Contrasted with a posteriori knowledge, which depends on empirical evidence.

Justified true belief

The classical tripartite analysis of knowledge: a belief counts as knowledge when it is true and the believer has adequate justification for holding it.

Gettier case

A scenario where a person has a justified true belief that nevertheless seems not to be knowledge, because luck rather than justification connects the belief to the truth.

Foundationalism

The view that justification rests on basic beliefs that need no further support, with all other justified beliefs inferred ultimately from those foundations.

Coherentism

The view that beliefs are justified by fitting coherently into a mutually supporting system, rather than by resting on indubitable foundations.

Reliabilism

A theory holding that a belief is justified when produced by a reliable, truth-conducive cognitive process such as perception or sound reasoning.

Ethical cognitivism

The metaethical view that moral statements express genuine beliefs and can be true or false, so moral discourse is truth-apt.

Emotivism

A non-cognitivist metaethical theory holding that moral statements express the speaker's feelings or attitudes rather than describing facts that could be true or false.

Utilitarianism

A consequentialist ethical theory holding that the right action is the one that maximises overall welfare, counting each affected being's interests equally.

Deontology

An ethical theory evaluating actions by whether they conform to duties or rules, independent of the consequences those actions produce.

Virtue ethics

An approach focusing on character traits and practical wisdom rather than rules or outcomes, asking what a flourishing, virtuous person would do.

Is-ought gap

Hume's point that descriptive premises about what is the case cannot by themselves entail prescriptive conclusions about what ought to be done.

Enthymeme

An argument with an unstated premise or conclusion that the audience is expected to supply. Reconstructing it explicitly is needed for evaluation.

Conclusion indicator words

Words such as therefore, thus, hence and so that typically signal the conclusion of an argument rather than one of its supporting premises.

Premise indicator words

Words such as because, since, given that and for that typically introduce reasons offered in support of an argument's conclusion.

Affirming the consequent

An invalid argument form: if P then Q; Q; therefore P. The consequent may be true for reasons unrelated to P.

Denying the antecedent

An invalid argument form: if P then Q; not P; therefore not Q. Other conditions besides P may also bring about Q.

Ad hominem

A fallacy that attacks the person making an argument rather than addressing the argument's premises or reasoning.

Straw man fallacy

Misrepresenting or exaggerating an opponent's position so that an easier, distorted version can be refuted instead of the real one.

False dilemma

A fallacy presenting only two options as exhaustive when additional alternatives exist, forcing a choice between artificially limited possibilities.

Begging the question

A fallacy where an argument's premise presupposes or assumes the very conclusion it is supposed to establish, making the reasoning circular.

Necessary condition

A condition that must be present for an outcome to occur; without it the outcome is impossible, though its presence may not guarantee the outcome.

Sufficient condition

A condition whose presence guarantees that an outcome occurs, even though the outcome might also arise through other sufficient conditions.

Counterexample method

A technique for showing an argument form is invalid by substituting terms that make the premises true and the conclusion false.

Principle of charity

An interpretive rule requiring that an opponent's argument be reconstructed in its strongest, most plausible form before it is criticised.

Reflective equilibrium

A method of adjusting particular moral judgements and general principles until they cohere, revising whichever proves less defensible under scrutiny.

Thought experiment

A hypothetical scenario used to test a philosophical principle by eliciting intuitions, which must then be explained or discounted.

Descriptive versus normative

Descriptive claims state what is the case; normative claims state what ought to be done or valued. Conflating them weakens philosophical argument.

Practical reasoning

Reasoning that moves from an end and beliefs about available means to an intention or action, evaluated for soundness of both components.

Moral particularism

The view that moral reasoning need not rely on general principles, since the moral relevance of any feature depends on context.