Scotland Β· SQASyllabus
Philosophy syllabus, dot point by dot point
Every dot point in the Scotland Philosophysyllabus, with a focused answer for each one. Click any dot point for a worked explainer, past exam questions, and links to related dot points. Written by Claude Opus 4.8, Anthropic's latest AI.
Arguments in Action
Module overview β- What makes a deductive argument valid, and how does validity differ from soundness and from the truth of the premises?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.11 min answer β
- How do you evaluate a whole argument using acceptability, relevance and sufficiency, and what role does the principle of charity play?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.11 min answer β
- What are the formal and informal fallacies you must recognise, and how do you show that an argument commits one?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.12 min answer β
- How do inductive arguments differ from deductive ones, and what makes an inductive argument reliable rather than weak?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.11 min answer β
- How do you recognise an argument, tell it apart from other kinds of writing, and set it out in standard form?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.11 min answer β
- Which standard argument forms are valid, which are invalid, and how do you use the counterexample method to tell them apart?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.12 min answer β
Course Assessment
Module overview βKnowledge and Doubt
Module overview β- How does Hume's empiricism explain knowledge through experience, and what limits does it place on what we can know?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.12 min answer β
- What are the strengths and weaknesses of rationalism and empiricism, and how do they answer the problem of knowledge?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.12 min answer β
- How does Descartes use systematic doubt to seek certain knowledge, and what does his rationalism claim?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.12 min answer β
- What is knowledge, how does it differ from belief, and what challenge does scepticism pose to our claims to know?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.11 min answer β
Moral Philosophy
Module overview β- How do you apply utilitarianism and Kantian ethics to a moral issue, and how do you evaluate and compare them?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.12 min answer β
- How does Kant ground morality in duty and reason, and what does the categorical imperative require?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.12 min answer β
- What makes a decision a moral one, and what key concepts and distinctions does moral philosophy use?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.11 min answer β
- How does utilitarianism decide what is right by maximising happiness, and how do Bentham and Mill differ?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.12 min answer β