Philosophy (Intermediate Level syllabus content): Arguments, Positions and Evaluation
The Intermediate Philosophy paper rewards one skill above all: reconstructing an argument in explicit form, then testing it. Content spans the standard areas - knowledge and justification, mind and body, moral theory, free will, and arguments about God - but marks are given for precise use of terms and for evaluating, not summarising, the positions you name.
What the examiner is looking for
- Prose rewritten as numbered premises and a conclusion, with validity judged separately from the truth of the premises.
- Technical terms defined exactly: a priori, supervenience, categorical imperative, compatibilism, no-false-lemmas.
- Philosophers attached to the position they actually hold, and the set text cited where the question invites it.
- Essays built as thesis → argument → strongest objection → reply → judgement.
Positions to keep apart
Epistemology: JTB analysis, Gettier cases, reliabilism. Mind: substance dualism, identity theory, functionalism. Ethics: act versus rule utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, virtue ethics. Freedom: hard determinism, compatibilism, libertarianism. Religion: ontological, cosmological and teleological arguments, plus the problem of evil.
Worked example: a Gettier case
Smith has strong evidence that Jones will get the job and that Jones has ten coins in his pocket, so he believes the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket. Smith gets the job, and he too has ten coins. The belief is true and justified. Reasoning: (1) state the JTB analysis being tested; (2) confirm truth and justification both hold; (3) identify that the fact making the belief true - Smith's own coins - plays no part in his justification; (4) conclude that JTB is insufficient, and consider a response such as adding a no-false-lemma condition or replacing justification with a reliability condition. The marks lie in step 3.
Traps that cost marks
- Calling a valid argument 'true', or a true conclusion 'valid'.
- Describing utilitarianism or dualism without weighing an objection.
- Merging compatibilism with determinism, or act with rule utilitarianism.
- Ignoring a counterexample the question has planted.
- Naming a philosopher without saying what the named view claims.