PhilosophyQ&A by dot point

Deductive validity and soundness: the meaning of validity (the conclusion must follow if the premises are true), the meaning of soundness (valid plus all premises actually true), and why a valid argument can have a false conclusion and a true conclusion can come from an invalid argument.

Evaluating arguments: judging the premises for acceptability, judging the premises for relevance to the conclusion, judging whether the premises are sufficient to support the conclusion, and applying the principle of charity when interpreting an argument.

Fallacies: the formal fallacies (affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent) and the common informal fallacies (ad hominem, straw man, false dilemma, slippery slope, appeal to emotion, begging the question, hasty generalisation and others), with how to identify and explain each.

Inductive arguments and reliability: how induction differs from deduction, the main inductive patterns (generalisation from a sample, argument from analogy, causal and predictive inference, appeal to authority), and the criteria that make an inductive argument reliable or weak.

Statements, arguments and standard form: distinguishing arguments from explanations, descriptions and assertions, identifying premises and conclusions using indicator words, and rewriting an argument in standard form.

Valid and invalid argument forms: modus ponens, modus tollens, the disjunctive and hypothetical syllogisms; the formal fallacies of affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent; and using the counterexample method to expose an invalid form.

The course assessment: the structure of the externally marked question papers covering Arguments in Action, Knowledge and Doubt and Moral Philosophy, the command words used, and how marks are awarded across short-answer, analysis and extended-response questions.

Empiricism and Hume: the claim that all knowledge derives from sense experience, the distinction between impressions and ideas, the copy principle, the fork between relations of ideas and matters of fact, and Hume's sceptical conclusions about causation and the self.

Evaluating rationalism and empiricism: the strengths and weaknesses of Descartes' rationalism and Hume's empiricism, the main objections to each, and a comparative assessment of how well each answers the sceptical problem of knowledge.

Rationalism and Descartes: the method of doubt, the three waves of doubt (the senses, the dream argument, the evil demon), the cogito as the first certainty, and the rationalist claim that reason is the foundation of knowledge.

The problem of knowledge: the distinction between knowledge and belief, the justified true belief account of knowledge, the sources of knowledge (reason and sense experience), and the sceptical challenge that we cannot be certain of what we claim to know.

Applying and evaluating moral theories: using utilitarianism and Kantian ethics to reason about a moral issue, weighing the strengths and weaknesses of each, and reaching a comparative judgement on which better answers how we should act.

Kantian deontology: the good will and duty, the distinction between categorical and hypothetical imperatives, the formula of universal law and the formula of humanity (ends in themselves), and the main objections to a duty-based ethic.

The nature of moral decisions: distinguishing moral from non-moral decisions, the key concepts of moral philosophy (right and wrong, good, duty, consequences, intention), and central distinctions such as normative versus descriptive and consequentialist versus non-consequentialist.

Utilitarianism: the greatest happiness principle, Bentham's act utilitarianism and the hedonic calculus, Mill's development with higher and lower pleasures and rule utilitarianism, and the main objections to a consequentialist ethic.