Philosophy Consultation Draft - Department of Education · 2019-09-16 · Each inquiry considers the 21 st Century or personal relevance of the discipline of philosophy, such as the
Post on 25-Apr-2020
1 Views
Preview:
Transcript
PHILOSOPHY COURSE CODE: [TASC ASSIGNS CODE]
LEVEL 3 / SIZE VALUE 15
TASC Course Document Template 16 September 2019
i
CONTENTS
Rationale .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Aims ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1
Learning Outcomes .............................................................................................................................................................. 2
Pathways.................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Course Size and Complexity ............................................................................................................................................ 2
Course Description ............................................................................................................................................................... 3
Relationship to the Australian Curriculum General Capabilities ........................................................... 3
Course Requirements .......................................................................................................................................................... 4
Course Delivery................................................................................................................................................................ 7
Course Content....................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Work Requirements .......................................................................................................................................................... 22
Assessment ............................................................................................................................................................................ 23
Quality Assurance Processes ........................................................................................................................................ 23
External Assessment Requirements ......................................................................................................................... 24
Criteria ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Standards ............................................................................................................................................................................... 25
Qualifications Available .................................................................................................................................................. 32
Award Requirements ....................................................................................................................................................... 32
Course Evaluation .............................................................................................................................................................. 33
Expectations Defined by National Standards ..................................................................................................... 33
Accreditation ........................................................................................................................................................................ 34
Version History .................................................................................................................................................................... 34
Appendices ............................................................................................................................................................................ 34
Appendix 1 - Line of Sight ............................................................................................................................................ 34
Appendix 2 - Glossary ..................................................................................................................................................... 37
1
Philosophy
RATIONALE
The value of philosophy is that it teaches not what to think, but how to think. The
academic discipline of Philosophy includes the study of the principles underlying
conduct, thought, existence and knowledge. The skills it develops are the ability to
analyse arguments, to engage with and to question prevailing views, and to express
thoughts clearly and precisely. It encourages critical thinking and creative problem
solving through open minded intellectual inquiry.
Philosophy promotes respect for intellectual integrity and builds learners’ capacity to be
independent thinkers who can articulate and justify positions on issues of significance to
themselves and to 21st Century society.
The course enables learners to develop responses to questions without definitive
answers, thus helping them to become comfortable with difficult intellectual challenges.
The emphasis on the analysis and formation of arguments allows students to identify
faulty or weak reasoning and understand the limits of knowledge.
This study of philosophy provides learners with an excellent introduction to
philosophical language and methodology, and to four key areas of philosophical study:
epistemology, metaphysics, ethics and political philosophy. Philosophy encourages
open-minded debate and an empathetic and tolerant response to the arguments of
others. It is intellectually challenging but is also of great relevance to learners in today’s
society.
AIMS
The Philosophy Level 3 course aims to develop learner’s:
knowledge and understanding of the tools of philosophical reasoning, analysis
and inquiry, including its terminology and its methods
capacity to identify develop and communicate philosophical questions and
arguments
skills in understanding and analysing significant philosophical ideas, viewpoints
and arguments in their relevant contexts
capacity to undertake inquiry, including skills in research, evaluation of sources,
synthesis of evidence, and analysis and communication of arguments
capacity to be informed citizens with skills in critical thinking and open-
mindedness: reflecting on their own thinking and that of others, and exploring
alternative approaches to philosophical questions
2
capacity to explore ideas and participate in philosophical debate, responding to
central philosophical questions, viewpoints and arguments with clarity and
precision
capacity to apply philosophical knowledge, skills and understanding to
contemporary and individual issues
open-mindedness: reflecting critically on their own thinking and that of others,
and exploring alternative approaches to philosophical questions.
LEARNING OUTCOMES
On successful completion of this course, learners will be able to:
use philosophical terms and methods in analysing and communicating
philosophical ideas, issues, arguments and positions
communicate ideas, issues, arguments and positions clearly and effectively
articulate the philosophical underpinnings of ideas, issues, arguments and
positions
describe and explain philosophical ideas, issues, arguments and positions
analyse, evaluate, articulate and justify arguments on various philosophical issues
identify strengths, weaknesses, assumptions and implications of philosophical
arguments
identify, formulate and evaluate evidence supporting or refuting philosophical
arguments
explain and evaluate the significance of philosophical ideas, issues, arguments
and positions to contemporary social and individual issues
utilise organisational and time management skills.
PATHWAYS
Exploring Issues in Society Level 2, Making Moral Decisions Level 2, Religion and Society
Level 2 and Studies of Religion Level 3 provide pathways to this course.
Successful completion of Philosophy Level 3 prepares learners for tertiary study in a
range of areas including: history, politics, law, religion, ethics and philosophy, business,
sociology, psychology, natural sciences, journalism, nursing, medicine and the creative
arts.
COURSE SIZE AND COMPLEXITY
This course has a complexity level of 3.
At Level 3, the learner is expected to acquire a combination of theoretical and/or
technical and factual knowledge and skills and use judgment when varying procedures
3
to deal with unusual or unexpected aspects that may arise. Some skills in organising self
and others are expected. Level 3 is a standard suitable to prepare learners for further
study at tertiary level. VET competencies at this level are often those characteristic of an
AQF Certificate III.
This course has a size value of 15.
COURSE DESCRIPTION
Philosophy Level 3 explores four of the main fields of philosophy; epistemology,
metaphysics, ethics and political philosophy. A foundation for inquiry is built through a
philosophical tool box and guided investigations into part of the existing corpus of
philosophical scholarship in each field. An additional focus on analysing and evaluating
arguments provides sound preparation for independent inquiries that apply all learning
from the course to issues of ‘living’ in the 21st century.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE AUSTRALIAN CURRICULUM GENERAL CAPABILITIES
Literacy
Learners engage in a wide range of learning activities in this course with significant
literacy demands. For example; they are required to compose and analyse arguments,
assess and use supporting evidence, and draft and complete extensive philosophical
inquiries.
Numeracy
Numeracy skills are developed and applied in the formal analysis of arguments
throughout this course. For example, in basic logic and argument learners develop skills
in analysing pattern and relationships in argument, and also learn to assess the structure
of arguments by mapping them against logical formulae. These skills are then applied
during the investigations and inquiries through each of the modules. In addition, various
philosophical theories that learners may study will involve the teaching, development
and application of additional numeracy capability; such as with the Hedonic Calculus in
the study of Utilitarianism in module 4.
Information and communications technology
Learners routinely develop their information and communications technology capability
during research investigations, and when they consume or produce diverse media such
as blogs, online discussion forums, and educational video and audio.
Critical and creative thinking
Critical and creative thinking is the aim and purpose of studying philosophy. Critically
analysing the arguments of others and creating and reflecting on their own arguments
are the central tasks for learners of this course. Learners develop and test their critical
thinking skills in the tool box and investigations strands of the course. In the inquiry
strand they apply these skills and both develop and apply their creative thinking skills.
4
Personal and social
Personal and social capability skills are developed as a result of learners working
independently and at other times in small groups. Learners should be given
opportunities to work collaboratively in groups and also independently as part of their
learning and research in this course. For example, each investigation in the course
provides learners with the opportunity to work with others in developing and testing
methods for the analysis of philosophical arguments. Teaches are likewise presented
with the opportunity to explicitly teach skills associated with co-construction and critical
friendship. In addition, inquiries in the course are student directed, where learners
generate inquiry questions from their own interests, and develop their self-direction and
self-management skills.
Ethical understanding
Ethics is a field of study in Philosophy. This course contains one module on ethics and a
second political philosophy module on value theory. Learners will develop the tools of
ethical decision making and engage with ethical theories and ethical issues in the ethics
module. They will further develop their ethical understanding through studying a
diversity of ethical thinkers, and engaging in personal ethical decision making in
compulsory philosophical inquiries.
Intercultural understanding
Intercultural understanding is a driver of content selection in the teacher support
material provided with this course. The course document itself ensures that learners
engage with philosophers from a variety of backgrounds, whilst the support material
provides a more extensive array of resources designed to develop intercultural
understanding and knowledge of different perspectives. In addition learners engage
extensively with Ancient, Medieval, Continental and Contemporary traditions within
philosophy; identifying and comparing their different interests and influence.
COURSE REQUIREMENTS
Philosophy 3 has five modules: Epistemology and reasoning (30 hours), Metaphysics A:
Existence (30 hours), Metaphysics B: Being (30 hours), Ethics (30 hours) and Political
Philosophy (30 hours). All modules are compulsory.
Modules consist of three components. All components are compulsory.
All components, other than the ‘basic logic and argument’’ component of module 1,
belong to one of three learning strands in the course: a ‘tool box’ (strand 1), an
investigation (strand 2), or an inquiry (strand 3).
5
Course content and requirements
Module 1
Epistemology
and reasoning
approximately
30 hours
Module 2
Metaphysics:A
-existence
approximately
30 hours
Module 3
Metaphysics:B
– being
approximately
30 hours
Module 4
Ethics
approximately
30 hours
Module 5
Political
Philosophy
approximately
30 hours
Introduction
to basic logic
and argument
(module 1 only)
To
ol B
ox
Stra
nd
tool box
component
epistemology
tool box
component
What can exist
tool box
component
Being (identity
and causality)
tool box
component
ethics
tool box
component
political
philosophy
Investig
atio
n S
tran
d
Investigation
component
scepticism
investigation
component
mind/body
investigation
component
free will
Investigation
component
normative
ethical theories
Investigation
component
the just state
Inq
uiry
Stra
nd
inquiry
component
learning
inquiry skills
through a
guided inquiry
inquiry
component
externally
assessed
12.5 hours
recommended
inquiry
component
externally
assessed
12.5 hours
recommended
inquiry
component
externally
assessed
12.5 hours
recommended
Tool Box strand – engaging with the ‘tools’ of the discipline –Each ‘tool box’
consists of key terminology and an introduction to key questions, issues and theories
from the relevant field of philosophy.
This introductory strand in each unit is not concerned with arguments and detailed
investigation, these come later. The tool box is designed to equip students with the
terminology and understanding of key questions and issues to enable them to:
6
1. use appropriate language and methodology in communicating about
philosophical investigations and undertaking philosophical inquiry
2. identify the philosophical context of arguments, investigations and inquiry, (e.g.
their philosophical field, topic, position or relevance).
Investigation strand – engaging with the existing body of work in the discipline.
Each investigation considers philosophical works and arguments from a topic within that
field of philosophy. Particular attention should be paid to: the philosophical context of
the discussion; the structure and strength of the arguments; their underlying
assumptions, implications, evidence and support; and the points of difference with
opposing arguments.
Investigations in to some major discussions from the relevant field of philosophy are
designed to equip students with an understanding of significant thinkers, issues and
arguments in that field, and enable them to:
1. develop and articulate a deep understanding of major philosophical ideas, issues
and debates
2. analyse the intentions, evidence and strength of philosophical arguments
3. confidently begin a philosophical inquiry in that field.
Inquiry strand – further developing and applying philosophical understanding
Each inquiry considers the 21st Century or personal relevance of the discipline of
philosophy, such as the following questions: Are the problems and arguments of
philosophy still relevant in the 21st Century? How have you come to understand yourself
and your world better through the study of philosophy? Does the study of
epistemology, metaphysics, ethics and politics offer something to 21st Century
problems? What is the purpose of philosophy in the 21st Century?
Inquiries will be based upon set topics inviting students to develop an inquiry question
in order to further explore a topic of interest to them and apply their philosophical ‘tool
box’ and investigation skills and understandings to 21st Century and individual issues.
Inquiries will equip them to:
1. apply their learning to issues of societal and personal significance
2. participate in philosophical debates
3. contribute confidently to meaningful discussions on topics of 21st Century and
individual significance.
7
COURSE DELIVERY
Module 1 Epistemology and reasoning will be delivered first. It is recommended that the
other components and modules be delivered in sequence.
COURSE CONTENT
MODULE 1
EPISTEMOLOGY AND REASONING (30 hours)
Reasoning
Analysing and articulating arguments is central to the discipline of philosophy. The first
module of this unit will familiarise learners with the basic features of logical argument
and equip them with the skills to analyse and articulate philosophical arguments.
Basic logic and argument
This component should encompass 10 of the 30 hours allocated to the epistemology
and reasoning module. The tools learnt from this module will underpin learners’
argumentation in all other modules of the course.
Content will include the following:
basic logic
o propositions
o conditional statements
o standard form and syllogisms
types of argument
o deductive arguments
o inductive arguments
strength of arguments
o validity, soundness and cogency
o formal logical fallacies, including but not limited to affirming the
consequent and denying the antecedent
o informal fallacies, including but not limited to ad hominem attacks, causal
fallacies and slippery slope arguments.
8
Learners will be expected to be able to:
identify, analyse and use logical structure in arguments
analyse arguments according to their inconsistency, including the identification
of common fallacies
assess the strength of arguments based upon their structure and inconsistencies.
Epistemology
Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge and how it may be acquired.
These two components will enable learners to engage with questions concerned with
knowledge: what we can know and how we can know it?
A key distinction for learners to understand is the epistemological distinction between
the ‘internal world’ of the knower and the ‘external world’ of the known.
In the epistemological components of this module, learners will investigate the
relationship between knowledge and the world, as well as considering ways of justifying
knowledge claims and testing their reliability.
Epistemology tool box
The purpose of the ‘tool box’ is to introduce learners to the language and methods of
the discipline in order to enable them to communicate philosophically. The questions
mentioned in this strand are not inviting an exploration of the arguments involved; that
comes later. They are a brief definition and illustration of some major issues from the
relevant field of philosophy. The focus is therefore on the terminology rather than
arguments. It is expected that teacher direction of learning will be highest in this strand.
Content will include an introduction to the following:
definitions of epistemology – learners should examine three different definitions
of epistemology, noting their similarities and differences in order to develop an
individual definition
terminology – students should develop an understanding of and be able to
define the key epistemological terms from the course glossary. Note that learners
will define the key highlighted terminology from the glossary and may choose to
define the related non-highlighted terminology
What is knowledge?
o definitions of knowledge - Plato’s tripartite account of knowledge and at
least one other definition of knowledge
o correspondence theory of meaning.
9
How can we know?
o how are beliefs justified as true? - foundationalism and at least one other
theory of epistemic justification (such as coherentism, evidentialism,
pragmatism or reliabilism)
o sources of knowledge (senses, evidence, reason, intuition, imagination,
testimony/research, perception/experience)
Truth and meaning
o the epistemological distinction between the internal world of the knower,
and the external world of the known, including a brief consideration of
one philosophical discussion of this distinction.
o the distinctions between objective and subjective truth, and universal and
relative truth.
Learners will be expected to be able to:
use basic appropriate terminology when communicating about epistemology
identify the philosophical context of epistemological ideas, issues and arguments.
Investigation – epistemological scepticism
The purpose of an investigation in this course is to engage with significant discussions
in a particular field of philosophy, and to develop skills in analysing and communicating
arguments. Teacher direction will be required but students should also have
opportunities for guided work together and individually.
Content will include the following:
scepticism – can we be certain of anything?
o scepticism according to the senses
o the problem of induction
o responses to scepticism
analysis of arguments on scepticism
o identification of topic/context
o specific works and arguments, including as evidence and support
o structure and strength of arguments
o underlying assumptions, implications or points of difference.
Learners will be expected to be able to:
10
explain, analyse and evaluate an argument for and an argument against
scepticism according to the senses
explain, analyse and evaluate an argument for and an argument against the limits
of reason
articulate an informed evidence-based position on epistemological scepticism.
MODULE 2
METAPHYSICS A - existence
Metaphysics is the study of the nature of reality, existence and being. The metaphysics
modules will enable learners to engage with questions that include those concerned
with mind and matter, being and identity, and causality.
A key distinction in this module is the metaphysical distinction between physical matter
and immaterial or non-physical entities.
In this module, learners will investigate the fundamental nature of persons and of the
Universe. They will examine the concepts of physical and non-physical or immaterial
entities and the role these concepts play in philosophical investigations. They will also
investigate what it might mean to exist, and how answers to this question impact
conclusions about what can exist, or not.
Tool box – metaphysics - existence
The purpose of the ‘tool box’ is to introduce learners to the language and methods of
the discipline in order to enable them to contextualise philosophical discussions and
communicate philosophically. Questions in this strand are not investigations but rather a
brief definition and illustration of some issues in the area. The focus is therefore on the
terminology rather than arguments. It is expected that teacher direction of learning will
be highest in this strand.
Content will include an introduction to the following:
definitions of metaphysics – learners should examine three different definitions of
metaphysics, noting their similarities and differences, in order to develop an
individual definition
terminology – students should develop an understanding of and be able to
define the key metaphysical terms from the course glossary. Note that learners
will define the key highlighted terminology from the glossary and may choose to
define the related non-highlighted terminology
11
metaphysical monism v pluralism
o materialism – the monist view that only matter exists (and its movements
and properties)
o idealism – the monist view that only the spiritual or ideas in the mind exist.
o pluralism (dualism)- the view that there is more than one kind of reality or
existence (most often in metaphysics of mind we see the dualist view that
both physical matter and the spiritual or mental ideas exist)
metaphysical reduction – often considered part of scientific reduction – i.e. the
claim, in support of materialism, that all supposedly non-physical phenomena can
be reduced to physical phenomena
potentially irreducible phenomena
o consciousness
o God
o will.
Learners will be expected to be able to:
use basic appropriate terminology when communicating about metaphysics
identify the philosophical context of metaphysical ideas, issues and arguments.
Investigation – mind/body
The purpose of an investigation in this course is for learners to engage with significant
discussions in a particular field of philosophy, and to develop their skills in analysing and
communicating arguments. Teacher direction will be required but students should also
have opportunities for guided work together and individually.
Investigations in this module focus on arguments about the metaphysics of a person;
there is opportunity in the inquiries for a broader application of metaphysical
understandings.
Content will include the following:
the mind/body problem
o metaphysical monism and dualism
o substance dualism and property dualism
o physicalism and functionalism
o the problem of interaction
12
analysis of mind/body arguments
o identification of topic/context
o specific works and arguments, including as evidence and support
o structure and strength of arguments
o underlying assumptions, implications or points of difference.
Learners will be expected to be able to:
explain, analyse and evaluate a dualist argument in detail
explain, analyse and evaluate a physicalist argument in detail
articulate an informed evidence-based position on mind/body arguments.
Guided inquiry – can neuroscience explain consciousness, or can a machine ever
have a mind
The inquiry strand of the module should encompass approximately 12.5 hours of the 30
hours allocated to the module. The purpose of an inquiry in this course is for learners to
apply their developing philosophical knowledge and understanding to philosophical
inquiries into socially and personally relevant 21st century issues. The usual teacher role
in this learning strand is one of guidance and support.
There is a greater need for teacher input and direction in this guided inquiry into
metaphysical thought experiments, as it is designed to introduce students to
philosophical inquiry as understood in this course and the skills they will need in later
independent inquiries.
Content will include an inquiry based upon one (1) of the following topics:
Can neuroscience fully explain consciousness?
Can a machine ever have a mind?
Learners will be expected to be able to:
draft and refine a philosophical inquiry that meets the assessment requirements
for this module of the course
articulate an evidence based position on the knowledge argument in
metaphysics.
13
Work requirement
Inquiry 1 – A guided inquiry into metaphysics
Learners will complete a 1500 word guided inquiry into a question based upon one of
the inquiry topics listed in this unit. This inquiry will respond to a question developed by
the teacher and learner in response to a stimulus they have selected. The inquiry will be
no more than 1500 words in length.
MODULE 3
METAPHYSICS B - being
Metaphysics is the study of the nature of reality, existence and being. The metaphysics
modules will enable learners to engage with questions that include those concerned
with mind and matter, being and identity, and causality?
In this module, learners will investigate the fundamental nature of being. They will
examine the concepts of free will and determinism, and the role these concepts play in
decision making. They will also engage with what it might mean to be an individual and
a person, and how answers to all these question impact conclusions about how they live
their lives.
Tool box – metaphysics (being)
The purpose of the ‘tool box’ is to introduce learners to the language and methods of
the discipline in order to enable them to contextualise philosophical discussions and
communicate philosophically. Questions in this strand are not investigations but rather a
brief definition and illustration of some issues in the area. The focus is therefore on the
terminology rather than arguments. It is expected that teacher direction of learning will
be highest in this strand.
Content will include an introduction to the following:
definitions of person, personhood, identity, determinism, free will
fundamental characteristics of physical matter
o existence in time and space (i.e. extension and temporality)
o the law of identity – that every ‘thing’ is identical to itself and different to
other things
o the principle of causality – that every event has a cause (often known as
the identity principle in action)
14
personal identity - (necessary and sufficient conditions of the persistence of
personal identity over time)
o personal identity over time, including connections to assumptions about
what a person is (eg. a collection of matter or a body and a soul)
o ‘substance’ and ‘consciousness’/’memory’ theories of personal identity
group identity
o What is a person? (or a cat or a chair etc)
o Can only humans be persons?
o personhood implications for value theory- is what makes ‘me’ me, also
what makes ‘me’ deserving?
Learners will be expected to be able to:
use basic appropriate terminology when communicating about metaphysics
identify the philosophical context of metaphysical ideas, issues and arguments.
Investigation – free will
The purpose of an investigation in this course is for learners to engage with significant
discussions in a particular field of philosophy, and to develop their skills in analysing and
communicating arguments. Teacher direction will be required but students should also
have opportunities for guided work together and individually.
Investigations in this module focus on arguments about the metaphysics of a person;
there is opportunity in the inquiries for a broader application of metaphysical
understandings.
Content will include the following:
the free will debate
o definitions of free will and the principle of causal determinism
o libertarianism, hard determinism and soft determinism/compatibilism
o the impact of indeterminism on the debate
analysis of free will arguments
o identification of topic/context
o specific works and arguments, including as evidence and support
o structure and strength of arguments
o underlying assumptions, implications or points of difference.
15
Learners will be expected to be able to:
explain, analyse and evaluate a libertarian argument
explain, analyse and evaluate a hard-determinist argument
explain, analyse and evaluate a compatibilist argument
articulate an informed evidence-based position on free will.
Inquiry
The inquiry component of this metaphysics module should encompass approximately
12.5 hours of the 30 hours allocated to the module. The purpose of an inquiry in this
course is for learners to apply their developing philosophical knowledge and
understanding to philosophical inquiries into socially and personally relevant 21st
century issues. The teacher role in this learning strand is one of guidance and support.
Content will include an inquiry into one (1) of the following topics:
How do metaphysical issues relate to moral responsibility?
What is the basis of identity?
Can the existence of God be proven?
Learners will be expected to be able to:
draft and refine a philosophical inquiry that meets the assessment requirements
for this module of the course
articulate an evidence based position on one of the metaphysics inquiry
questions.
Work requirement
Inquiry 2 – An inquiry into metaphysics
See the Work Requirements section for details regarding the inquiry structure and size
16
MODULE 4
ETHICS
Ethics is the study of moral principles and how we ought to behave. This module will
enable learners to engage with questions that include those concerned with behaviour,
obligations to others, moral truth, and how we might know what is right.
In this module, learners will investigate the fundamental assumptions underlying ethical
theories. They will examine the core principles of theories about ethical behaviour, the
possible importance of intentions and consequences, and the impact that ethical
theories might have on 21st Century issues and their own lives.
Tool box
The purpose of the ‘tool box’ is to introduce learners to the language and methods of
the discipline in order to enable them to contextualise philosophical discussions and
communicate philosophically. Questions in this strand are not investigations but rather a
brief definition and illustration of some issues in the area. The focus is therefore on the
terminology rather than arguments. It is expected that teacher direction of learning will
be highest in this strand.
Content will include an introduction to the following:
definitions of ethics – learners should examine three different definitions of
ethics, noting their similarities and differences, in order to develop a personal
definition
terminology – students should develop an understanding of and be able to
define the key ethical terms from the course glossary. Note that learners will
define the key highlighted terminology from the glossary and may choose to
define the related non-highlighted terminology
the distinction between meta ethics, normative ethics and applied ethics
o meta ethics - such as - what type of statements are ethical statements
(factual, preference…), and what might ethical words like good, bad, right
and wrong mean?
o setting norms of ethical behaviour, such as following rules, considering
consequences and cultivating virtue
o examples of 21st century moral challenges and issues
17
questions about moral agents, persons and obligations
o an individual’s interest and preference, what are they and how do they
differ?
o notions of obligation – what is obligation, who or what might it be to?
o the moral value of intention and motivation – how do they impact upon
the morality of an action?
links with related fields of philosophy
o epistemological links with ethics – questions related to objectivity,
relativity and nihilism
o metaphysical links with ethics – considerations of free will, God and
immortality
o links with value theory - considerations of a ‘good life’, such as the pursuit
of knowledge or perfection, cultivation of virtue or art, hedonism,
eudaimonia, existentialism, absurdism, altruism.
Learners will be expected to be able to:
use basic appropriate terminology when communicating about ethics
identify the philosophical context of ethical ideas, issues and arguments.
Investigation – normative ethical theories
The purpose of an investigation in this course is for learners to engage with significant
discussions in a particular field of philosophy, and to develop their skills in analysing and
communicating arguments. Teacher direction will be required but students should also
have opportunities for guided work together and individually.
The investigation in this module will focus on differing approaches to normative ethics.
Learners will investigate at least two theories, each from a different list.
Content will include at least two (2) theories selected from different lists below.
List A –
deontological
theories
List B – teleological
theories
List C – different
approaches to normative
ethics
18
Immanuel Kant’s
categorical
imperative
Natural Law
Paul Taylor’s
bioegalitarian
deontology
classical utilitarianism
preference
utilitarianism
Buddhist rule-
consequentialism
Simone de Beauvoir’s
existentialist ethics
Nel Noddings’ care ethics
Martha Nussbaum’s
capabilities approach
Confucian virtue ethics
Learners will be expected to be able to:
explain, analyse and evaluate two ethical theories
compare and contrast two different ethical theories
articulate an informed evidence-based position on the advantages and
disadvantages of two different approaches to ethics.
Inquiry
The inquiry strand of this module should encompass approximately 12.5 hours of the 30
hours allocated to the module. The purpose of an inquiry in this course is for learners to
apply their developing philosophical knowledge and understanding to philosophical
inquiries into socially and personally relevant 21st century issues. The teacher role in this
learning strand is one of guidance and support.
Content will include an inquiry into one (1) of the following topics:
Can normative ethics diagnose appropriate responses to 21st century sex/gender
or environmental issues?
Personhood and ethics – who is valuable in the 21st century?
What are the constituents of a good life in the 21st century?
Learners will be expected to be able to:
19
draft and refine a philosophical inquiry that meets the assessment requirements
for this module of the course
articulate an evidence based position on one of the ethical inquiry questions
presented to them.
Work requirement
Inquiry 3 – An inquiry into ethics
See the Work Requirements section for details regarding the inquiry structure and size
MODULE 5
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
Political Philosophy is the study of how to arrange and organise society. It is particularly
concerned with notions of justice, law, authority, liberty, property and rights - and the
management of conflict between these competing notions, and between competing
individuals and groups.
In this module, learners will investigate the nature and purpose of the state and of
government. They will examine the notions of human rights and justice; and investigate
different views about the best form of government. In addition, learners will inquire into
issues around the role of 21st century government in people’s lives, and the obligations
individuals might have to a 21st century state.
Tool box
The purpose of the ‘tool box’ is to introduce learners to the language and methods of
the discipline in order to enable them to contextualise philosophical discussions and
communicate philosophically. Questions in this strand are not investigations but rather a
brief definition and illustration of some issues in the area. The focus is therefore on the
terminology rather than arguments. It is expected that teacher direction of learning will
be highest in this strand.
Content will include an introduction to the following:
definitions of political philosophy – learners should examine three different
definitions of political philosophy, noting their similarities and differences, in
order to develop a personal definition
20
terminology – students should develop an understanding of and be able to
define the key political philosophy terms from the course glossary. Note that
learners will define the key highlighted terminology from the glossary and may
choose to define the related non-highlighted terminology
society and government
o the distinction between state and government
o the purpose and legitimacy of the state
o the best form of a state – political ideology and forms of government
how individuals should act in society
o rights – what are they and what is their source
o obligations – to whom and why
o liberty – what is it and how important is it?
individual rights and the state
o why relinquish some rights to the state? (e.g. the idea of Social Contract)
o justice and competing rights
o allegiance and disobedience
Learners will be expected to be able to:
use basic appropriate terminology when communicating about political
philosophy
identify the philosophical context of ideas, issues and arguments in political
philosophy.
Investigation – the just state
The purpose of an investigation in this course is for learners to engage with significant
discussions in a particular field of philosophy, and to develop their skills in analysing and
communicating arguments. Teacher direction will be required but students should also
have opportunities for guided work together and individually.
The investigation in this unit will focus on different views on the central feature or
features of a just state. Learners will compare contrasting approaches to justice in the
state.
Content will include two (2) of the following:
Plato (justice as harmony)
Karl Marx (justice as radical equality)
21
John Rawls (justice as fairness)
Robert Nozick (justice as entitlement)
Susan Moller Okin (justice as gender equality)
Martha Nussbaum (justice as securing human capabilities)
Learners will be expected to be able to;
explain, analyse and evaluate two approaches to a key consideration of just states
explain, analyse and evaluate key differences between two contrasting theories
on political justice
articulate an informed evidence-based position on justice in the state.
Inquiry
The inquiry strand of this module should encompass approximately 12.5 hours of the 30
hours allocated to the module. The purpose of an inquiry in this course is for learners to
apply their developing philosophical knowledge and understanding to philosophical
inquiries into socially and personally relevant 21st century issues. The teacher role in this
learning strand is one of guidance and support.
Content will include an inquiry into one (1) of the following topics:
What, if any, are our rights in the 21st century?
What is the purpose of the 21st century state?
How is the 21st century state best organised?
Learners will be expected to be able to:
draft and refine a philosophical inquiry that meets the assessment requirements
for this module of the course
articulate an evidence-based position on one of the political philosophy inquiry
questions presented to them.
Work requirement
Inquiry 4 – An inquiry into political philosophy
See the Work Requirements section for details regarding the inquiry structure and size
22
WORK REQUIREMENTS
Inquiry guidelines
Time allocation: from the 30 hours for each unit 2-5 it is recommended that 12.5 hours
be allocated for each inquiry; 10 hours for the initial development of the inquiry and 2.5
hours for refinement and external assessment preparation.
For each inquiry required, learners will complete a 1400-1600 word inquiry into a
question based upon one of the inquiry topics listed in the specific unit. The inquiry will
respond to a question developed by the learner in response to a stimulus they have
selected.
Guidelines select a stimulus of no more than 150 words in length that
raises a philosophical issue in a 21st century context
develop an inquiry question from the stimulus
explain, analyse and evaluate at least two (2) alternate
philosophical views relevant to the inquiry question
explain and support with evidence the implications of
applying these philosophical views to the inquiry question
explain the implications of the inquiry for the issue raised
in the stimulus
address the value, influence or relevance of the study of
philosophy in the 21st century
Presentation word-processed inquiry totalling between 1400 and 1600
words
the inquiry should be in essay form
the stimulus must be included in an appendix and is to be
the only appendices
the inquiry must abide by TASC’s Academic Integrity
Guidelines
Work requirements summary
Module Work Requirement
2 Inquiry 1 – A guided inquiry into metaphysics
3 Inquiry 2 – An inquiry into metaphysics
4 Inquiry 3 – An inquiry into ethics
5 Inquiry 4 – An inquiry into political philosophy
23
ASSESSMENT
Criterion-based assessment is a form of outcomes assessment that identifies the extent
of learner achievement at an appropriate end-point of study. Although assessment – as
part of the learning program – is continuous, much of it is formative, and is done to help
learners identify what they need to do to attain the maximum benefit from their study of
the course. Therefore, assessment for summative reporting to TASC will focus on what
both teacher and learner understand to reflect end-point achievement.
The standard of achievement each learner attains on each criterion is recorded as a
rating ‘A’, ‘B’, or ‘C’, according to the outcomes specified in the standards section of the
course.
A ‘t’ notation must be used where a learner demonstrates any achievement against a
criterion less than the standard specified for the ‘C’ rating.
A ‘z’ notation is to be used where a learner provides no evidence of achievement at all.
Providers offering this course must participate in quality assurance processes specified
by TASC to ensure provider validity and comparability of standards across all awards.
Further information on quality assurance processes, as well as on assessment, is on the
TASC website: http://www.tasc.tas.gov.au
Internal assessment of all criteria will be made by the provider. Providers will report the
learner’s rating for each criterion to TASC.
TASC will supervise the external assessment of designated criteria which will be
indicated by an asterisk (*). The ratings obtained from the external assessments will be
used in addition to internal ratings from the provider to determine the final award.
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCESSES
The following processes will be facilitated by TASC to ensure there is:
a match between the standards of achievement specified in the course and the skills
and knowledge demonstrated by learners
community confidence in the integrity and meaning of the qualification.
24
TASC gives course providers feedback about any systematic differences in the
relationship of their internal and external assessments and, where appropriate, seeks
further evidence through audit and requires corrective action in the future.
EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS
The external assessment for this course will comprise:
A folio consisting of three philosophical inquiries assessing criteria 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6
For further information see the current external assessment specifications and
guidelines for this course available on the TASC website.
CRITERIA
The assessment for Philosophy Level 3 will be based on the degree to which the learner
can:
1. Communicate philosophical knowledge and understanding*
2. Articulate knowledge of philosophical ideas, issues and arguments
3. Analyse philosophical arguments*
4. Analyse and use evidence in support of philosophical arguments*
5. Apply philosophical ideas, concepts, arguments and methods to 21st century
issues*
6. Undertake philosophical research*
7. Use resources and organisational strategies
* = denotes criteria that are both internally and externally assessed]
25
STANDARDS
CRITERION 1: COMMUNICATE PHILOSOPHICAL KNOWLEDGE AND
UNDERSTANDING*
This criterion is both internally and externally assessed
RATING ‘A’ RATING ‘B’ RATING ‘C’
The learner: The learner:
The learner:
structures ideas to
communicate coherent
and cohesive
philosophical
arguments
structures ideas to
communicate coherent
philosophical
arguments
structures main ideas
to communicate basic
philosophical
argument
uses a wide range of
relevant philosophical
terminology to clarify
meaning and support
philosophical discussion
correctly uses a range of
relevant philosophical
terminology to support
philosophical discussion
uses a limited range of
philosophical
terminology to support
philosophical
discussion
accurately uses complex
grammatical and
philosophical
conventions in clear and
nuanced
communication
accurately uses
grammatical and
philosophical
conventions to achieve
clarity in
communication
uses grammatical and
philosophical
conventions to
improve clarity of
communication
identifies relevant and
pertinent philosophical
context* of discussions
identifies relevant and
pertinent philosophical
context* of discussions
identifies the
philosophical context*
of discussions
* such as their philosophical field, topic, position or significance
26
CRITERION 2: ARTICULATE KNOWLEDGE OF PHILOSOPHICAL IDEAS, ISSUES AND
ARGUMENTS
RATING ‘A’ RATING ‘B’ RATING ‘C’
The learner: The learner:
The learner:
presents a detailed
explanation of the ideas,
issues and debates
within philosophical
discussions
explains relevant
philosophical ideas,
issues and debates
within philosophical
discussions
identifies ideas, issues
and debates within
philosophical
discussions
demonstrates a
comprehensive and
nuanced understanding
of philosophical ideas,
issues and debates in
own explanations
correctly uses relevant
philosophical ideas,
issues and arguments in
own explanations
uses a limited range of
relevant philosophical
ideas, issues and
arguments in own
explanations
articulates a wide-range
of pertinent and
nuanced philosophical
ideas, issues and
arguments in response
to philosophical
questions
explains relevant
philosophical ideas,
issues and arguments in
response to
philosophical questions
outlines appropriate
philosophical ideas,
issues and arguments
in response to
philosophical questions
accurately describes
connections between
philosophical ideas,
concepts and issues
describes connections
between philosophical
ideas, concepts and
issues
outlines connections
between philosophical
ideas, concepts and
issues
27
CRITERION 3: ANALYSE PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS
This criterion is both internally and externally assessed
RATING ‘A’ RATING ‘B’ RATING ‘C’
The learner: The learner:
The learner:
analyses the intentions,
assumptions,
perspective and
rationale of
philosophical
arguments
explains the intentions,
assumptions,
perspective or rationale
of philosophical
arguments
identifies the
intentions,
assumptions,
perspective or rationale
of philosophical
arguments
analyses and evaluates
relative strengths and
weaknesses of
philosophical
arguments
describes and evaluates
relative strengths and
weaknesses of
philosophical
arguments
outlines basic strengths
and weaknesses of
philosophical
arguments
uses pertinent structural
and coherence features
of philosophical
arguments
correctly describes
structural or coherence
features of
philosophical
arguments
identifies structural or
coherence features of
philosophical
arguments
explains the relative
significance of various
components of
philosophical
arguments
describes the
significance of various
components of
philosophical
arguments
identifies the
significance of
components of
philosophical
arguments
28
CRITERION 4 : ANALYSE AND USE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF PHILOSOPHICAL
ARGUMENTS
This criterion is both internally and externally assessed
RATING ‘A’ RATING ‘B’ RATING ‘C’
The learner: The learner:
The learner:
analyses and interprets
the evidence used to
support philosophical
arguments and
positions
explains evidence used
to support philosophical
arguments or positions
identifies evidence
used in support of
philosophical
arguments or positions
evaluates the
pertinence and
effectiveness of
evidence used to
support philosophical
positions and
arguments
describes relevance,
pertinence or
effectiveness of
evidence used to
support philosophical
positions and
arguments
effectively uses a range
of pertinent evidence to
support philosophical
argument
effectively uses relevant
evidence to support
philosophical argument
uses appropriate
evidence in support of
philosophical
argument
presents a rational and
coherent evidence-
based position on
philosophical issues
presents a coherent
evidence-based position
on philosophical issues
presents an evidence-
based position on
philosophical issues
29
CRITERION 5: APPLY PHILOSOPHICAL IDEAS, CONCEPTS, ARGUMENTS AND
METHODS TO CONTEMPORARY ISSUES
This criterion is both internally and externally assessed
RATING ‘A’ RATING ‘B’ RATING ‘C’
The learner: The learner:
The learner:
analyses and assesses
the implications and
consequences of
philosophical ideas
correctly explains
implications and
consequences of
philosophical ideas
describes implications
and consequences of
philosophical ideas
analyses and evaluates
the implications of
philosophical positions
on 21st century issues
plausibly explains the
implications of
philosophical positions
on 21st century issues
describes the
implications of
philosophical positions
on 21st century issues
critically assesses the
value of philosophical
thinking to living in the
21st century
explains the relevance
of philosophical
thinking to living in the
21st century
describes the relevance
of philosophical
thinking to living in the
21st century
analyses and evaluates
how the study of
philosophy can
influence one’s life
describes and explains
how the study of
philosophy can
influence one’s life
describes how the
study of philosophy
can influence one’s life
formulates nuanced
contemporary
philosophical questions
formulates rational
contemporary
philosophical questions
formulates
contemporary
philosophical questions
30
CRITERION 6: UNDERTAKE PHILOSOPHICAL RESEARCH
This criterion is both internally and externally assessed
RATING ‘A’ RATING ‘B’ RATING ‘C’
The learner: The learner:
The learner:
locates a wide range of
relevant primary and
secondary sources
locates a range of
relevant primary and
secondary sources
locates a limited range
of relevant primary and
secondary sources
analyses and evaluates
relevance and relative
significance of
information that is
used in philosophical
discussions
analyses relevance and
relative significance of
information that is
used in philosophical
discussions
selects and uses
information relevant to
philosophical
discussions
analyses and evaluates
reliability of
information for use in
philosophical
discussions
analyses reliability of
information for use in
philosophical
discussions
selects and uses
reliable information
for philosophical
discussions
clearly differentiates
the ideas of others
from the learner’s own
clearly differentiates
the ideas of others
from the learner’s own
differentiates the ideas
of others from the
learner’s own
referencing conventions
and methodologies are
followed with a high
degree of accuracy
referencing conventions
and methodologies are
followed correctly
referencing
conventions and
methodologies are
generally followed
correctly
creates appropriate
well-structured
reference
lists/bibliographies
creates appropriate
structured reference
lists/bibliographies
creates appropriate
reference
lists/bibliographies
31
CRITERION 7: USE RESOURCES AND ORGANISATIONAL STRATEGIES
RATING ‘A’ RATING ‘B’ RATING ‘C’
The learner: The learner: The learner:
effectively manages
time, resources and
equipment needed to
undertake a wide
range of philosophical
investigations and
inquiries
manages time,
resources and
equipment needed to
undertake a range
philosophical
investigations and
inquiries
identifies time,
resources and
equipment needed to
undertake
investigations and
inquiries
develops and employs
highly effective and
coherent research plans
develops and uses
appropriate research
plans
uses appropriate
research plans
proposes and
negotiates complex,
measurable, achievable
and realistic goals
proposes and
negotiates measurable,
achievable and realistic
goals
proposes and
negotiates with
support measurable,
achievable and realistic
goals
critically evaluates
progress using oral and
written communication,
and assesses impact on
goals and plans
reflects on progress
using oral and written
communication, and
assesses impact on
goals and plans
reflects on progress
towards meeting goals
using oral and written
communication, and
uses prescribed
strategies to meet goals
plans future actions,
effectively adjusting
goals and plans where
necessary
plans future actions,
adjusting goals and
plans where necessary
uses prescribed
strategies to adjust
goals and plans where
necessary
uses technology and a
range of critical thinking
strategies to find
innovative solutions to
questions and problems
uses technology and
critical thinking
strategies to find
solutions to questions
and problems
uses technology and
prescribed strategies to
find solutions to
questions and problems
effectively manages and
completes a range of
inquiries and responses
within proposed
timelines.
effectively manages and
completes inquiries and
responses within
proposed timelines.
manages and completes
inquiries and responses
within proposed
timelines.
32
QUALIFICATIONS AVAILABLE
Philosophy Level 3 (with the award of):
EXCEPTIONAL ACHIEVEMENT
HIGH ACHIEVEMENT
COMMENDABLE ACHIEVEMENT
SATISFACTORY ACHIEVEMENT
PRELIMINARY ACHIEVEMENT
AWARD REQUIREMENTS The final award will be determined by the Office of
Tasmanian Assessment, Standards and Certification from thirteen ratings seven from the
internal assessment, six from external assessment).
The minimum requirements for an award in Philosophy Level 3 are as follows:
EXCEPTIONAL ACHIEVEMENT (EA)
10 ‘A’ ratings, 2 ‘B’ ratings (4 ‘A’ ratings, 1 ‘B’ rating from external assessment)
HIGH ACHIEVEMENT (HA)
4 ‘A’ ratings, 5 ‘B’ ratings, 3 ‘C’ ratings (2 ‘A’ ratings, 2 ‘B’ ratings and 1 ‘C’ rating
from external assessment)
COMMENDABLE ACHIEVEMENT (CA)
6 ‘B’ ratings, 5 ‘C’ ratings (2 ‘B’ ratings, 3 ‘C’ ratings from external assessment)
SATISFACTORY ACHIEVEMENT (SA)
10 ‘C’ ratings (3 ‘C’ ratings from external assessment)
PRELIMINARY ACHIEVEMENT (PA)
6 ‘C’ ratings
A learner who otherwise achieves the ratings for a CA (Commendable Achievement) or
SA (Satisfactory Achievement) award but who fails to show any evidence of achievement
in one or more criteria (‘z’ notation) will be issued with a PA (Preliminary Achievement)
award.
33
COURSE EVALUATION
The Department of Education’s Curriculum Services will develop and regularly revise the
curriculum. This evaluation will be informed by the experience of the course’s
implementation, delivery and assessment.
In addition, stakeholders may request Curriculum Services to review a particular aspect
of an accredited course.
Requests for amendments to an accredited course will be forward by Curriculum
Services to the Office of TASC for formal consideration.
Such requests for amendment will be considered in terms of the likely improvements to
the outcomes for learners, possible consequences for delivery and assessment of the
course, and alignment with Australian Curriculum materials.
A course is formally analysed prior to the expiry of its accreditation as part of the
process to develop specifications to guide the development of any replacement course.
COURSE DEVELOPER
The Department of Education acknowledges the significant leadership of [insert relevant
names here] in the development of this course.
EXPECTATIONS DEFINED BY NATIONAL STANDARDS
There are no statements of national standards relevant to this course.
34
ACCREDITATION
The accreditation period for this course is from [text to be inserted by TASC].
VERSION HISTORY
Version 1 – Accredited on [TASC will insert accreditation date] for use from [TASC will
insert date]. This course replaces Philosophy (PHL315118) that expired on [insert date].
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 - LINE OF SIGHT
Learning
Outcome
Illustrations of learning
outcome
Content Criterion and
elements
use philosophical
terms and
methods in
analysing and
communicating
philosophical
ideas, issues,
arguments and
positions
Identify, analyse and use
logical structure in arguments
Use basic appropriate
terminology
Draft and refine a
philosophical inquiry
All
modules
1. Communicate
philosophical
knowledge and
understanding
Elements 2, 3 and 4
communicate
ideas, issues,
arguments and
positions clearly
and effectively
Identify, analyse and use
logical structure in arguments
Use basic appropriate
terminology
Identify the philosophical
context of ideas, issues and
arguments
Draft and refine a
philosophical inquiry
All
modules
1. Communicate
philosophical
knowledge and
understanding
All elements
2. Articulate
knowledge of
philosophical ideas,
issues and arguments
All elements
35
articulate the
philosophical
underpinnings of
ideas, issues,
arguments and
positions
Use basic appropriate
terminology
Identify the philosophical
context of ideas, issues and
arguments
All
modules
1. Communicate
philosophical
knowledge and
understanding
Elements 2 and 4
2. Articulate
knowledge of
philosophical ideas,
issues and arguments
Elements 1, 2 and 3
3. Analyse
philosophical
arguments
Elements 1 and 3
describe and
explain
philosophical
ideas, issues,
arguments and
positions
Explain, analyse and evaluate
arguments for and against
All
modules
2. Articulate
knowledge of
philosophical ideas,
issues and arguments
All elements
6. Undertake
philosophical
research
All elements
analyse, evaluate,
articulate and
justify arguments
on various
philosophical
issues
Identify, analyse and use
logical structure in arguments
Analyse arguments according
to their inconsistency,
including the identification of
common fallacies
Assess the strength of
arguments based upon their
structure and inconsistencies
All
modules
3. Analyse
philosophical
arguments
All elements
2. Articulate
knowledge of
philosophical ideas,
issues and arguments
36
Explain, analyse and evaluate
arguments
Articulate an informed
evidence-based position
Element 4
identify strengths,
weaknesses,
assumptions and
implications of
philosophical
arguments
Explain, analyse and evaluate
arguments
Draft and refine a
philosophical inquiry
Articulate an evidence based
position on an inquiry topic
All
modules
3. Analyse
philosophical
arguments
Elements 1, 2 and 4
5. Apply philosophical
ideas, concepts,
arguments and
methods to 21st
century issue
Elements 1 and 2
identify,
formulate and
evaluate evidence
supporting or
refuting
philosophical
arguments
Articulate an informed
evidence-based position
Draft and refine a
philosophical inquiry
Articulate an evidence based
position on an inquiry topic
All
modules
4. Analyse and use
evidence in support
of philosophical
arguments
All elements
explain and
evaluate the
significance of
philosophical
ideas, issues,
arguments and
positions to
contemporary
social and
individual issues
Explain, analyse and evaluate
arguments
Draft and refine a
philosophical inquiry
Articulate an evidence based
position on an inquiry topic
Inquiries
in
modules
2-5
5. Apply philosophical
ideas, concepts,
arguments and
methods to 21st
century issue
All elements
6. Undertake
philosophical
research
Element 2
utilise
organisational
and time
management
skills
Draft and refine a
philosophical inquiry that
meets assessment
requirements
All
modules
7. Use resources and
organisational
strategies
All elements
37
APPENDIX 2 - GLOSSARY
This glossary is a preliminary step in defining key terms for this course. Learners are
advised to undertake further investigation. Learners should note that terms may have
different applications in other fields within or outside of philosophy. Learners should
also note that terminology in philosophy is often understood differently by philosophers
with contrasting views.
Module 1 Epistemology and reasoning
Learners should note that terms may have different applications in other fields within or
outside of philosophy. Learners should also note that terminology in philosophy is often
understood differently by philosophers with contrasting views.
Term Definition
analytic statement -truth can be determined by linguistic meaning (see synthetic)
a posteriori – knowledge that is justified through experience
a priori - knowledge that is justified independently of experience
argument – a set of premises leading to a conclusion
belief – information or a proposition where someone is more certain than not of its
truth
coherentism – view that epistemic justification relies upon the coherence of beliefs
conditional statements – statements of the logical form “if → then”
contingent – a contingent proposition may be true or false depending on circumstances
deductive argument –one where the premises are intended to guarantee the
conclusion
empirical evidence – evidence obtained via the senses
empiricism – the view that all knowledge is based upon sensory experience
evidentialism – a view that epistemic justification is based upon evidence
experience – source of knowledge that includes perception, memory, imagination etc.
fallacies – errors in reasoning
fallibilism – view that no knowledge claims can ever be fully justified
38
foundationalism – view that knowledge justification rests on foundational beliefs
inductive argument – one where the premises provide good reason for the conclusion
logic – branch of philosophy concerned with the processes of reasoning
necessary truth – truth value is set regardless of circumstances (see contingent)
objective truth – truth that is independent of the knower (see subjective)
perception – knowing or collecting data through the use of senses
pragmatism – the view that epistemic justification rests upon practicality
premise – a step in an argument, formally a proposition supporting a conclusion
proposition– a representation that may be true or false
rationalism – view that reason is the ultimate source of knowledge (see empiricism)
reason – applying logic, understanding and making sense of information
relative truth – that truth can vary in different circumstances
relativism – the view that there are no absolute or universal truths
reliabilism – view that epistemic justification rests upon the process of obtaining
knowledge
scepticism – the attitude of doubting knowledge claims
scientific method – using observation and experiment to form, test and modify
hypotheses
syllogism – a particular formal arrangement of premises and conclusion in an argument
synthetic statement – truth determined by how it relates to the world (see analytic)
subjective truth – based upon perspective, feelings, opinions etc. (see objective)
truth value – truth or falsity of a proposition
veil of perception – may exist between perception and its objects
universal truth – truth that is true everywhere and at all times
Modules 2 and 3 Metaphysics
Learners should note that terms may have different applications in other fields within or
outside of philosophy. Learners should also note that terminology in philosophy is often
understood differently by philosophers with contrasting views.
39
Term Definition
behaviourism – physicalist view that so called mental events are types of behaviour
causality– relation of events when one or more causes bring about one or more effects
compatibilism – view that free will and determinism are compatible
consciousness – awareness of knowledge or perception
corporeal – having physical form or extension
cosmogony – the study of the origin of the universe
cosmology – the study of the physical universe, including its origin and evolution
determinism – view that all events are completely determined by prior events
dualism – pluralist view that there are two kinds of reality: mental and physical
existence – ontological state of being, part of reality
eliminativism – version of materialism that denies mental states exist
epiphenomenalism – view that mental events cause physical ones but not vice versa
free will - power or capacity to choose between alternatives
functionalism – view that mental states are identified by what they do not what they
are
idealism – monist view that reality is mental, made of ideas or thoughts
identity – quantitative uniqueness of an individual and/or qualitative uniqueness of type
identity theory – materialist view identifying ‘mind and mental’ with brain and brain
activity
immaterial – has no extension or weight
incorporeal – without physical body or form
interaction problem – how do distinct mental and physical substances causally interact
interactionism – dualist view that matter and mind are real and have mutual causal
impact
libertarianism – view that free will exists and causal determinism is false
materialism – monist view that matter is the fundamental substance of reality
matter – physical substance
40
mind – mental events, functions, properties and the seat of consciousness
monism – view that there is only one type of substance
objects – material things
ontology – branch of metaphysics concerning the study of being
parallelism – view that mental and physical events are coordinated not inter-causal
physicalism – view that everything is physical
properties – characteristics of objects
qualia – the ‘what it feels like’ of subjective conscious experience
reductionism – view that one kind of entity (e.g. mental) is reducible to another
(physical)
solipsism – view that nothing exists but your own mind (see subjective idealism)
Module 4: Value Theory: Ethics
Learners should note that terms may have different applications in other fields within or
outside of philosophy. Learners should also note that terminology in philosophy is often
understood differently by philosophers with contrasting views.
absolutism – view that there are moral standards that are always right or wrong
altruism – view that the moral worth of actions is measured by the impact upon others
applied ethics – the practical application of ethics
character – personal moral qualities of an individual
consequentialist – view that the worth of actions is determined by their consequences
deontological – view that moral behaviour involves adhering to rules or principles
divine command theory – view that God has prescribed what is right and wrong
environmental ethics – re the moral status of the environment and human obligation to
it
feminist ethics – revising and rethinking ethics that has devalued women’s experience
41
imperative – an unconditional duty
intention – aim or plan for an action
meta-ethics – concerning the meaning of ethical words, properties, assumptions and
values
morality – concerning right and wrong behaviour, very similar to ethics in this course
moral realism – view that objective moral facts exist independent of belief or opinion
moral theory – a theory concerned with right and wrong, good and bad
motivation – causes or reasons for an action
nihilism – the view that rejects all values
normative ethics – concerned with moral standards of behaviour
objectivity – right or wrong independent of any individual’s perceptions
obligation – a non-legal requirement
ought – denotes a duty or requirement to follow a course of action
personhood – the status of being a ‘person’ with consequent rights and considerations
preference – highest or higher ranked option, course or alternative
relativism – view that moral standards depend upon context and are not absolute
subjectivity – view that moral value depends upon individual perspectives or opinions
teleological – view that moral behaviour is judged according to its purpose or end
the good life – questions and views about what gives value, purpose or meaning to life
utilitarianism – ethical view based upon the usefulness of an action
virtue – moral excellence
virtue ethics – normative theories emphasising character or virtue
Module 5: Value Theory: Political Philosophy
Learners should note that terms may have different applications in other fields within or
outside of philosophy. Learners should also note that terminology in philosophy is often
understood differently by philosophers with contrasting views.
Term Definition
42
allegiance – loyalty and commitment
anarchy – without an acknowledged government
aristocracy – government by the nobility
capabilities – a person’s opportunities and ability to produce valued outcomes
capitalism – economic system with private ownership of goods, services and production
citizen – a legally recognised member of a state with rights and duties
democracy – government by the people
equality – equal in treatment, status, rights and responsibilities
equity – situation of fairness and impartiality
fairness – without favouritism, injustice or discrimination
government – exercising ongoing authority over a state
harmony – right or suitable balance; pleasing arrangement of parts
ideology – purposeful and coherent set of ideas, beliefs and values
justice – rational, right and proper treatment or consequences
law – formal codified system and set of rules
legitimacy – conforming to the law or rules
liberty – the state of being free from undue interference
monarchy – government by a monarch
nation – independent community of people with a common territory and government
oligarchy – government by a small elite group
property – belongings such as land, buildings, wealth and goods
republic – government where the state is considered a public concern not a private one
rights - entitlements
socialism – economic system with social ownership of goods services and production
state – political entity, consisting of the people and territory under a government
totalitarian – absolute, centralised and dictatorial form of government
utility - usefulness
43
Terminology used in the standard elements
Term Definition
analyse - to examine, scrutinise, explore, review, consider in detail for the purpose of
finding meaning or relationships, and identifying patterns, similarities and differences
appropriate – in Philosophy this means belonging to the field of philosophy under
consideration
assess - to make a judgement about, to rate, to weigh up, to form an opinion
coherence features – in this course the coherence features of an argument include those
features related to the order, fit and consistency of meaning of the argument. For
instance informal fallacies, and the selection of evidence are coherence features of an
argument.
coherent – orderly with internally consistent relation of parts, (primarily concerned with
meaning). In this course a coherent argument will always be cohesive.
cohesive – consists of parts that fit together well and form a united whole (primarily
concerned with structure). In this course a cohesive argument may or may not be
coherent.
comprehensive – detailed and thorough; inclusive of a broad range of ideas and
information
critically analyse - to closely examine, analyse in detail, focus on essence, examine
component parts of an issue or information (for example identifying the premise of an
argument or ideology, and its plausibility, illogical reasoning or faulty conclusions)
critically assess – examine the component parts in order to make a judgement about (to
rate, to weigh up, to form an opinion about) value, significance or extent
describe - to recount, tell of/about, chronicle, comment on, give an account of
characteristics or features
evaluate - to appraise, measure, judge, provide a detailed examination and
substantiated judgement concerning the merit, significance or value of something
explain - to make plain, clear, intelligible, to describe in detail, revealing relevant facts
identify - to point out, name, list, distinguish, recognise, establish or indicate who or
what someone or something is
nuanced – including subtle shades of meaning
44
outline – use general terms to indicate the main features
perspective – a particular point of view that may influence an individual or group in their
interpretation of ideas, issues or arguments
pertinent – relevant and fit for the task and the author’s purpose
rationale – set of reasons for, purpose or basis of an argument
relevant – belonging to the specific argument, topic or discussion under consideration
structural features – in this course structural features of arguments refer to those
features to do with the consistency, order, fit and unity of the structure of the argument.
For instance, issues of validity and/or informal fallacies are structural features of an
argument.
Office of Tasmanian Assessment,
Standards and Certification
Level 6, 39 Murray Street Hobart
TAS 7000 Australia
GPO Box 333 Hobart
TAS 7001 Australia
Phone: (03) 6165 6000
Email: enquiries@tasc.tas.gov.au
Web: www.tasc.tas.gov.au
top related