Philosophy

The value of philosophy is that it teaches not what to think, but how to think. It is the study of the principles underlying conduct, thought, existence and knowledge. The skills it develops are the ability to analyse, to engage with and to question prevailing views and to express thoughts clearly and precisely. It encourages critical and creative problem solving through open-minded intellectual flexibility and examining existing paradigms in new ways.

Philosophy promotes respect for intellectual integrity and builds learners’ capacity to be independent thinkers who can articulate and justify philosophical positions

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 epistemology, the scientific method and logic allows students to identify faulty or weak arguments and understand the limits of knowledge.

The study of philosophy provides learners with an excellent introduction to the key areas of philosophical study; metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, questions on free will, understandings around science and faith as means of knowing and how to live the ‘good life’. It is intellectually challenging but is also of great relevance to learners in today’s society.

The Philosophy Level 3 course aims to develop learners’:

• knowledge and understanding of the nature of philosophy and its methods
• capacity to undertake inquiry, including skills in research, evaluation of sources, synthesis of evidence, analysis of interpretations and representations, and communication of findings
• capacity to identify and articulate philosophical questions
• skills in understanding and analysing significant philosophical ideas, viewpoints and arguments, in their historical contexts
• capacity to be informed citizens with skills in analytical and critical thinking and to participate in philosophical questions and debates
• capacity to explore ideas, responding to central philosophical questions, viewpoints and arguments with clarity, precision and logical argument
• understanding of relationships between responses to philosophical questions and contemporary issues
• open-mindedness, reflecting critically on their own thinking and that of others, and exploring alternative approaches to philosophical questions.

On successful completion of this course, learners will be able to:

Exploring Issues in Society Level 2, Making Moral Decisions Level 2, Religion in 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.

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 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 characteristics of an AQF Certificate III.

 This course has a size value of 15.

Learners will study five (5) compulsory units.

Unit 1, Introduction to Epistemology, is compulsory. Skills and understandings acquired in studying Unit 1 will be applied to all other units.

Units 2 to 5 are compulsory. One elective topic in Unit 4 will be completed.

Unit 1 will be delivered first. It is recommended that Units 2, 3, 4 and 5 are delivered sequentially.

Course Content and Requirements

Unit 1: Introduction to Epistemology (30 hours)

Unit 2: Mind/body (30 hours)

Unit 3: Free Will (30 hours)

Choose either

Unit 4.1 Contemporary Conflicts in Moral Theory (30 hours)

OR

Unit 4.2 Life the Universe and Everything (30 hours)

Unit 5: The Good Life (30 hours)

UNIT 1: AN INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (Approximately 30 hours)

This introductory unit will provide a foundation for learners to engage with questions concerned with knowledge, what we can know and how we can know it. Since the 17th Century epistemology has been a primary focus of Western philosophy. Epistemology is a branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and sources of our knowledge.

Epistemological questions include:

• What is the foundation of knowledge and how does it differ from belief?
• How is knowledge acquired and is the process distinct from the acquisition of beliefs?
• What methods of reasoning can bring us closest to the ‘truth’?
• And can we really ever know anything?

Learners will engage in research and discussion about traditional definitions of knowledge, including Plato’s tripartite account of knowledge as justified true belief. In considering the theoretical limitations of our knowledge, learners will examine Cartesian and Humean scepticism.

In an introduction to sound philosophical reasoning, learners will be able to identify and consider the strength or validity of inductive or deductive arguments.

Learners will also examine two distinct schools of thought on sources of knowledge; empiricism and rationalism. Learners will investigate these schools of thought and will analyse and evaluate arguments put forward by philosophers to support each approach.

Studies will include investigations in how alternative arguments attempt to refute the tripartite account. The skills in epistemology (the study of knowledge) will be relevant to, and may be applied to, all other units throughout this course. This introductory Unit will give students the tools and capabilities to analyse and evaluate philosophical arguments and differing perspectives. By understanding the foundations of knowledge students will be able to approach challenging philosophical questions with an understanding of how to arrive at a position based on effective and thorough reasoning.

Content in this unit includes but is not limited to:

• What is the difference between belief and knowledge?
  • The tripartite theory of knowledge claims that knowledge is ‘true justified belief’; this theory holds that three conditions must be satisfied in order for one to possess knowledge i.e. if you believe something, with justification, and it is true, then it can be classed as knowledge.
  • Gettier cases show that some justified true beliefs do not constitute knowledge
  • An alternative to the tripartite theory is the view that knowledge is true belief formed through a reliable method (cf. Robert Nozick)
• What is the justification of knowledge?
  • Foundationalism asserts that the justification of much of our knowledge is referential, meaning that many of our beliefs are justified by other beliefs. This view requires some beliefs to be self-justifying. These self-justifying beliefs form a foundation upon which other beliefs and claims can be justified.
  • Coherentism claims that knowledge has a web-like structure. Beliefs are justified by virtue of their coherence with other beliefs. One argument for coherentism is the failure of foundationalism as an alternative.
• Explanation and evaluation of empiricism and rationalism
  • Empiricism is the theory that all knowledge is based on experience derived from the senses. Hume’s empiricism is one example.
  • Rationalism is the theory that reason rather than experience is the foundation of certainty in knowledge. The rationalism of Descartes is an example.

To clarify further - there is wide agreement that knowledge, however it is accounted for, includes: 

• data (especially that provided by the senses)
• ‘thinking’ about data (or reasoning)

Philosophers have disagreed about which is the more fundamental of these two components.

• Descartes, for instance, argued that sense data is unreliable and thus reason must be credited with being the foundation of knowledge.
• Scepticism asks if we can know anything? Sceptical arguments include Descartes methodological doubt and Humean scepticism; specifically Hume’s problem of induction.
• Two approaches to reasoning are inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning:
  • Inductive reasoning is a process in which premises provide evidence for a conclusion. The truth of a conclusion in inductive reasoning is probable, not certain.
  • Deductive reasoning is a process in which one or more premises are used to attempt to guarantee the truth of a conclusion; i.e. deductive reasoning links premises with conclusions in a way that true premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

Investigations in this unit may include but are not limited to:

• investigating proposed foundations of knowledge
• differentiating between knowledge statements and beliefs
• investigating Descartes’ ‘method of doubt’ and Hume’s ‘problem of induction’ as a means of illustrating philosophical scepticism
• examining the differences between the arguments for empiricism (such as those proposed by Hume, Locke or others) and rationalism (such as those proposed by Descartes or Plato) evaluating the effectiveness of inductive and deductive reasoning.

Learners may use epistemological questions to support analysis of philosophical theories and the nature of knowledge in subsequent Units 2-5. Refer to APPENDIX A for examples.

In completing Unit 1 learners will gain key knowledge and understanding of:

• the difference between belief and knowledge
• how to identify statements as belief or knowledge
• scepticism and its role in epistemology
• the use of inductive and deductive reasoning in philosophy
• the major differences between empiricism and rationalism.

Learners will:

• analyse and evaluate one argument from at least one empiricist
  • empiricists may include Hume, Locke.
• analyse and evaluate one argument from at least one rationalist
  • rationalists may include Descartes, Plato.

UNIT 2: MIND/BODY PROBLEM (Approximately 30 hours)

This unit investigates the mind/body problem. The problem looks at the nature of the relationship between the mind and the physical body, asking a number of questions, including:

• Are they separate?
• What is the relationship between them?
• What is mind and how does it exist with matter?

The mind/body problem has been addressed since the time of Plato and is evident in the works of philosophers since that time.

Study in this topic will focus on more recent schools of thought, but will not neglect earlier philosophers, for example Descartes.

There are a number of responses that have been proposed to the mind/body problem although none are fully accepted universally.

Content for this unit will include investigations into philosophical theories on mind/body, these may include but are not limited to:

• dualist and monist philosophical positions on the mind/body problem
• the relative strengths and weaknesses of philosophical positions on the mind/body problem
• analysis of thought experiments on qualia and their relevance to the mind/body problem
• Cartesian dualism and other forms of dualism that try to avoid the problem of interaction (e.g. contributions from Leibniz, Malebranche, Property Dualists), physicalist evaluation of the problem of interaction (e.g. Ryle’s ‘ghosts in the machine’)
• forms of physicalism
• thought experiments and issues of qualia (e.g contributions from Jackson, Chalmers, Nagel)
• critique of thought experiments and qualia (such as that proposed by Dennett).

In more detail, philosophical theories and concepts that address mind/body include:

• Dualism, which is the position that the mind is not physical, and is separate to the body. Dualism exists in various forms. Studies of dualism may include:
  • property dualism which claims that we do have mental states like thoughts and beliefs, and that these mental states are properties. Mental properties are viewed as different to physical properties.
  • substance dualism which claims that mental events belong to the mind, and physical events belong to the body. The mind and body are considered to be of different substances in this view.
  • Cartesian dualism is the substance dualism formulated by Rene Descartes. All Cartesian dualists are also substance dualists
  • the problem of interaction and dualist responses to it, such as:
    • interactionism - states that the mind and body have causal interaction
    • occasionalism - states the apparently causal links between mind and body are actually divine intervention
    • parallelism - states that the apparent causal link between mind and body is an illusion, and that mind and body run parallel to one another.
• Monism which is the position that the mind and body are not fundamentally separate. There are several types of mind-body monism, and studies may include:
  • physicalism, which asserts that the mind may be understood as the brain, and mental events may be reduced to the physical processes of the brain, e.g.:
    • functionalism, which states that mental states or events are just particular behaviours, characterised as mental or mind because of the way they function or the role they play
    • identity theory/type physicalism, which argues that mental states are equivalent to brain states of certain types
    • behaviourism, which holds that discussions about mental states can be reduced to discussions about behaviours.
  • idealism, which in metaphysics claims that the mind is all that exists, similar to:
    • phenomenalism, which is an epistemological theory about knowledge which may lead to a metaphysical view that the physical world is nothing but perceptions which exist within the mind alone.
  • materialism, which claims that everything is either made only of matter or is ultimately dependent upon matter for its existence and nature. In contemporary thought there is very little difference between the use of the terms materialism and physicalism, though it is important to be aware that the terms have different histories.
• Thought experiments
  • Investigations will include analysis of thought experiments and their relevance. Epistemological approaches may be applied in this study.
  • Thought experiments are devices of the imagination used to investigate our world; for example, The Chinese Room, The Black and White Room, Philosophical Zombies.
  • Learners should investigate the reasoning behind the thought experiments they study.

In completing Unit 2, learners will gain key knowledge and understanding of:

• how the mind/body problem centres around the notions of mind (mental) and body (physical)
• whether we are made up of the physical as in our body and/or the mental as in our mind
• dualism (a view that there is both mind/mental and body/physical) of which there are a number of theories, including:
  • property dualism
  • substance dualism e.g. Cartesian dualism
• the problem of interaction
• monism (views that there is only mind/mental or that there is only body/physical) of which there are a number of theories, including
  • physicalism and materialism theories which include
    • functionalism
    • behaviourism
    • identity theory
  • idealism
• the strengths and weaknesses of mind/body theories
• proposed examples of mental events such as thoughts, dreams, ideas, hopes, emotions, love and fear
• proposed examples of physical events such as walking, falling, heart-beat, brain states
• qualia – the qualitative nature of experience
• thought experiments related to qualia and the mind/body problem, for example Searle’s Chinese room, Jackson’s black and white room and Chalmer’s philosophical zombies.

Learners will:

• analyse and evaluate at least one example of dualism including at least one argument from at least one dualist, investigating and assessing strengths and flaws, referring to the reasoning philosophers have used and to opposing arguments
• analyse and evaluate at least one example of monism, including at least one argument from at least one monist, investigating and assessing strengths and flaws, referring to the reasoning philosophers have used and to opposing arguments
• analyse and evaluate the issue and significance of qualia, investigating and assessing its strengths and flaws, referring to the reasoning philosophers have used and to opposing arguments
• analyse and evaluate at least one thought experiment, investigating and assessing its strengths and flaws, referring to the reasoning philosophers have used and to opposing arguments.

UNIT 3: Free Will (Approximately 30 hours)

This unit will consider the question of free will; what is meant by free will and whether human beings ever have the ability to exercise free will and act as they choose?

Study in this topic will focus on defining free will, along with investigation and analysis of different responses to the question of free will and the arguments that have been presented by philosophers to support those responses. The issue of punishment and moral responsibility will provide a context for learners to understand why the question of free will is important in today’s society.

This unit includes investigations into three key questions on ‘free will’:

• What is free will and do humans possess it?
• Is free will compatible with determinism?
• What is punishment for and what are the implications of different views on free will?

What is free will and do humans possess it?

• Examining contested definitions of Free Will
• Libertarianism – argues that human beings are free to choose amongst alternatives available. Libertarians may suggest that as humans have
  • free will to choose their actions, they are morally bound to be responsible for those choices and actions
  • philosophers studied may include Descartes and Peter van Inwagen in evaluation of the libertarian view (at least one philosopher must be studied).

• Determinism is the belief that everything that happens is part of a necessary chain of past causes and their effects. In this regard, what humans do is also determined by past events rather than by independent ‘free’ human choices made at the time.
  • types of determinism may include: divine, causal, genetic, environmental, logical, physical, material, mechanical
  • determinism argues causality, that all events are determined by preceding events
  • philosophers for the study of determinism may include la Place, Baron d'Holbach, Patricia Churchland, Schopenhauer or Galen Strawson (at least one philosopher must be studied.)
• Both libertarianism and hard determinism are known as incompatibilist views.
• Incompatibilism, which denies the compatibility of free will and determinism.

Is free will compatible with determinism?

• Compatibilism provides a response to the disputed compatibility of free will and determinism. It proposes that free will is compatible with determinism, and can also be expressed as a concept that argues compatibility between determinism and moral responsibility (i.e., that people can make free choices, for which they can be held morally responsible, even if determinism is true)
  • philosophers for the study of compatibilism may include Daniel Dennett and David Hume (at least one philosopher must be studied.)
• Hard determinism (incompatibilist determinism) and soft determinism (compatibilist determinism) both agree that determinism is true but disagree on whether free will is possible.
• Indeterminism is a view that there are events which have no cause or are at least not fully determined. This can be connected with the idea of uncertainty and indeterminacy (e.g. Werner Heisenberg’s quantum mechanics.)

What is punishment for and what are the implications of different views on free will?

Some hard determinists (e.g. Clarence Darrow in the Leopold and Loeb case, 1924) have argued that our current practices of punishing the guilty cannot be justified if hard determinism is true. But this conclusion depends on what purpose punishment serves. Does it exist solely to exact retribution and give criminals their just deserts (the retributivist view)? In which case, punishment is difficult to justify if hard determinism is true.

Or does it exist to promote good outcomes such as deterring potential offenders or rehabilitating offenders (the consequentialist view)? IIn which case, punishment may be justified as a potential future ‘cause’ even if hard determinism is true.

In other words, the relevance of different views on free will to punishment depends in part on the function punishment is supposed to serve.

Examples of investigations may include:

• If people have ‘free will’ should they be responsible for their actions? How does this impact on the law?
• Are ‘free will’ and determinism incompatible? Discuss in relation to the position of at least two philosophers apply the themes of ‘free will’ to a range of everyday situations
• Define and explain hard determinism and soft determinism. Discuss in relation to creating arguments in standard form or different epistemic approaches
• Define and explain the position of Libertarianism.
• Examine the implications of different views on free will if the primary purpose of punishment is retribution. What if the primary purpose is deterrence or rehabilitation?

In completing Unit 3, learners will gain knowledge and understanding of:

• Contested definitions of ‘free will’
• Responses of philosophers and thinkers to the question of ‘free will’
• An argument that determinism is compatible with free will
• The definition and key features of indeterminism, hard determinism and soft determinism
• The main philosophical positions of the compatibilism and incompatibilism theses
• The issue of punishment/moral responsibility and the effectiveness of determinism as a legal defence
• The contribution of philosophical debate to contemporary issues of law
• Explanation and evaluation of philosophers’ arguments for libertarianism, determinism, and compatibilism.

Learners will

• examine definitions of free will and their impact on the position adopted regarding free will
• analyse and evaluate arguments for and against libertarianism, hard determinism and soft determinism; considering what free will is and if humans possess it
• analyse and evaluate the arguments of at least one compatibilist and one incompatibilist, considering whether free will and determinism are compatible
• examine implications that the various positions on free will have for the issues of punishment and moral responsibility
• analyse and evaluate the effectiveness of determinism as a legal defence

UNIT 4: ELECTIVE STUDIES

Either

Elective 4.1 CONTEMPORARY CONFLICTS IN MORAL THEORY (Approximately 30 hours)

This unit elective investigates questions relating to contemporary morality. What does it mean to think, act, and exist morally? Is morality relative to context, both circumstantial and cultural? Have humans made meaningful moral progress throughout history? Is there an objective, universal morality to which humanity is given access, or do we create our own codes? How are we to exist as moral agents in a contemporary context?

This study of moral theory explores ideas about what it means to think, act and reason ethically, with an emphasis upon applying modern philosophical schools of thought, and specific skills to contemporary issues.

The aim of this unit of study is to educate and engage students in a study of moral theory that will assist them in becoming empowered ethical thinkers and accountable young adults.

Studying moral theory in the context of a broad range of contemporary issues offers learners the ability to undertake a study of applied ethics, utilising the skills of previous units to formulate, refine, challenge and make accountable, their own ethical perspectives on the world.

This study develops an understanding of moral theories, thinkers and themes, whilst encouraging learners to make meaningful choices in an empowered and informed sense.

Learners investigate both moral theories and contemporary ethical issues, undertaking investigations of at least two moral theories and at least one contemporary ethical issue. Of the two moral theories investigated, one should be from the ‘core’ moral theories listed below. These investigations include the application of the chosen theories to the chosen issue(s).

Core moral theories include:

• Moral relativism, which argues that there are no absolute or universal moral standards and that moral claims are only ever true from the perspective of a person or group such as that of a culture. (relativist theories may include: cultural relativism, subjectivism and conventionalism)
• Moral nihilism, which argues that there are no moral facts or values, whether absolute or relative. There is no such thing as rightness or goodness, or right and wrong action. (examples may include J. L. Mackie’s error theory, Bernard Williams or Richard Joyce’s more contemporary arguments)
• Deontology, which argues that there are universal moral laws, rules or principles (examples may include: Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative or Rawls’ original position and principles of justice)
• Consequentialism, which argues that the consequences of actions determine whether they are right or wrong (may include: Jeremy Bentham’s classical utilitarianism and hedonic calculus, John Stuart Mill)

Other moral theories that may be considered include:

• Preference utilitarianism which claims that the satisfaction of preferences is a better measure of utility than happiness. (for example: Peter Singer)
• The capabilities approach, which suggests that providing opportunities for individuals to flourish by utilising human capabilities is the greatest ethical consideration. (for example: Martha Nussbaum)
• Virtue ethics, which emphasises good character rather than rules or consequences? (for example, Aristotle)
• Existentialist ethics, which emphasizes the importance of freedom. (for example, Jean Paul Sartre, Friedrich Nietzsche.)
• Feminist ethics, which may emphasise a distinctively feminine ‘ethic of care’ that should supplement a masculinist moral reasoning that places emphasis on impartiality and principles?

Contemporary ethical questions and issues may include:

• Environmental Ethics: Our ethical obligations to the environment, may include but not limited to:
  • human interaction within and interference with the natural world
  • the rights of animals
  • conservation
  • sustainability
  • climate change and its consequences (displaced peoples and disappearing species).
• Political Ethics: Our rights and responsibilities as citizens of the state and in the world, may include but not limited to:
  • the basis, justification, and constraints upon individual rights
  • liberties in an age of terror (terrorism, torture, privacy, surveillance, whistleblowers)
  • responsibility to less economically developed nations and to domestic minorities (decolonisation and the legacies of Empire, rights of First Nation peoples, wealth inequalities, altruism and charity, economic exploitation, overconsumption, rights of corporations, and consumer ethics in capitalism, moral imperialism)
  • international military intervention; the theory of the just war, Jimmy Carter’s invocation of just war in his article in NY Times prior to the Iraq war 9 March 2003.
• Feminist Ethics: Our role and ethical imperative in identifying and deconstructing gender inequalities and patriarchal privilege, may include but not limited to:
  • the fundamental principles of feminism and the right to equality
  • sexism: social expectations, objectification, and access to power or wealth
  • ‘women’s work’: division of domestic and paid labour in society
  • perception of women in power, affirmative action and quotas
  • contemporary manifestations of inequality between the sexes (online harassment, social media, gamergate).

In completing elective 4.1, learners will gain key knowledge and understanding of:

• The nature of morality, moral theory and specific schools of normative ethics
• How to identify, articulate and analyse ethical questions
• The contemporary context of ethical issues in a globalised world
• How to explore ethical ideas, responding to foundational ethical questions, viewpoints and arguments with clearly expressed logical analysis and evaluation
• How to apply moral theories to a range of contemporary issues, under a number of broad strands
• How to utilise key terms and approaches of moral theory
• How to evaluate the strengths and limitations of moral theories
• The ways in which ethical issues and their proposed solutions reflect values and ideological positions.

Learners will:

• Analyse and evaluate at least two moral theories
• Investigate at least one contemporary ethical issue
• Apply at least two theories to at least one contemporary ethical issue

OR

Elective 4.2 Life, the Universe and Everything (Approximately 30 hours)

This unit elective explores competing views on the universal questions around the origin of the universe and life on earth. The two main explanations studied are scientific explanations and theist explanations.

In this elective learners investigate key theories and understandings including:

1. Science and faith as ways of knowing (including paradigms)
2. Theories for the origin of the universe and proponents of these theories
3. Theories about the origin and variety of human life and proponents of these theories

Science and Faith as Ways of Knowing

Investigations into ‘Science as a way of knowing’ may include but are not limited to:

• The Scientific Method
  • the most common means of distinguishing scientific knowledge claims from non-scientific or pseudo-scientific claims is the method used to arrive at claims. The scientific method consists of: empirically observing patterns in the natural world, forming hypotheses to explain empirical observations, using hypotheses to make predictions, testing predictions through experimentation, and finally, amending hypotheses or devising further predictions depending on results of experiment
  • there exist problems with the scientific method, including the problem of observation (fallibility of senses & quantum observer effect) and the problem of induction. To what extent do these problems undermine the status of science?
  • falsifiability is a further means of distinguishing science from non-science. Proposed by Karl Popper, this theory aims to eliminate the problem of verificationism by insisting that science must aim to disprove and to eliminate false beliefs
  • Thomas Kuhn challenges Popper’s theory of scientific falsificationism by suggesting that the development of a science is not uniform but has alternating ‘normal’ and ‘revolutionary’ phases. Normal science resembles the standard cumulative picture of scientific progress. paradigm shifts (examples are the shift from geocentrism to heliocentrism and Newtonian to Einsteinian mechanics)
  • Kuhn’s incommensurability thesis suggests that knowledge claims can only be evaluated from within a paradigm. There is no common measure for claims outside of a paradigm. Therefore, we have no means of determining the value of theories in an objective way. To what extent does incommensurability make assessing scientific theories problematic? Does incommensurability mean that there is no way to determine whether religious or scientific paradigms better explain life and the universe?
• Investigations into faith may include but are not limited to
  • faith can answer questions that science cannot, i.e. why is there something rather than nothing?
  • faith can answer the ‘why’ questions where science is limited to ‘how’ questions
  • criticisms of faith as a way of knowing; including faith does not revise beliefs as new evidence comes to light
  • faith provides the answer then looks for evidence to support the answer rather than the other way around.

Theories for the origin of the universe

• The big bang theory

Content may include but is not limited to:

• The leading and most widely accepted scientific theory about how the universe began is the big bang theory; the theory proposes that the universe began with a small ‘singularity’, transforming over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos of today
• Many of the understandings of the big bang theory stem from mathematical theory and models; astronomers support the theory through a phenomenon called the ‘cosmic microwave background’, an ‘echo’ of the expansion
• the theory is open to change and refinement in the future
• the theory does not explain the origin of the ‘singularity’; as such questions are raised regarding whether it is a theory of the origins of the universe, or a theory regarding the transformation of the universe
• questions also grapple with the notion of the big bang theory being described as scientific (as the laws of physics could not apply in the ‘beginning’). Does it therefore rely upon a ‘leap of faith’ to accept the big bang theory?
• the emergence of light or cosmic microwave background (CMB); early theorists of CMB include such as Alpher (1948).

The cosmological argument is actually an argument ‘type’ i.e. the use of a pattern of argumentation; it utilises certain alleged facts about the world (the cosmos) making inferences to the existence of an external agent or being. First cause cosmological arguments for instance– argue that if the universe exists, there must have been something that first caused it to come into being. Otherwise there would be an infinite regress of causes with no beginning

Investigations into the cosmological argument may include ‘modal’ and ‘temporal’ versions:

• Modal (associated with possibility):
  • e.g. contingency arguments: contingency distinguishes those things that must exist, or could not have failed to exist, and those that exist contingently (caused by something, and thus not a necessary existence.) As the universe is contingent it must have been caused by something necessary.
• Temporal (associated with time) cosmological arguments e.g. the Kalam argument
  • this is distinguished from other cosmological arguments, in that it argues that there must be a point in time in which the universe began to exist, and If the universe began to exist it must have had a cause. As no scientific account can accurately explain its cause, it must therefore have been caused by an agent or being and that agent is God.

Theories about the origin of human life and our place in the universe

• Evolution

Darwinism; is an explanation of the process in which living organisms have developed from earlier forms; evolving in response to their environments and by improving survival and continuance as a species; seen as an evidence-based explanation for the process of the history of life on Earth and the variety and diversity of life. Scientists use evidence to demonstrate that the evolutionary process explains the existence of human life as one part of life on Earth over millions of years. Learners will investigate evolutionary evidence and arguments.

Investigations consider argument and the evidence that underpins it in detail, may include but are not limited to:

• Adaptation – adaptation provides an improved function that impacts on the success of a species; provided by natural selection
• Speciation – where a species evolves into two or more separate species; involves genetic change
• Natural selection - the process by which organisms better adapt to their environment to survive and produce more offspring; explaining evolution
• common descent – explains evolutionary biology and how a group of organisms may share common ancestors; that all living things on earth descended from a common ancestor. The notion of common descent is supported by DNA evidence
• extended evolutionary synthesis - the concept that has dominated evolutionary thinking focuses on genetic inheritance and, given new evidence, theorists propose more nuanced evolutionary explanations. The theory of EES (Extended Evolutionary Synthesis) argues for the significance of drivers of evolution, that organisms are constructed in relation to their environment as well as through more direct genetic expression. EES does not replace traditional thinking but argues that there is more to evolution than just genes with a single expression and that there are multiple routes to adaptation between organism and environment.

• Teleological (design) argument:

The design argument argues that the cosmic order and its complexity are the result of intelligent design – i.e. the work of an external being. A key question the teleological argument poses is ‘Does the designer continue to have input into the design?’

Investigations may include, but are not limited to:

• Intelligent design – the reinterpretation of scientific knowledge in accord with belief in the literal truth of the Bible, especially regarding the origin of matter, life, and humankind; attempts to find scientific support for creationism
• Creationist Michael Behe (1996) advocates the theory of ‘intelligent design’; that certain biochemical processes are ‘irreducibly complex’ in which he argues that species could not have evolved from natural selection as the removal of any one element would destroy the viability of the organism. He argues therefore that organisms could not have evolved but must have been a product of intelligent design.
• Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225–1274): proposes that the order in the universe proves that there must be a designer of it.other teleological arguments; for example: William Paley and his ‘watchmaker’
• the Anthropic argument explains that human existence depends on a range of cosmological constants. If any of these parameters or constants changed, so would the existence of the universe as we know it
• the Fine Tuned Universe and argument from Suspicious Improbabilities are modern versions of Teleological Arguments that criticise the ‘randomness’ of evolution;

In completing Unit 4 elective 2, learners will gain key knowledge and understanding of:

• Competing theories for the origin of the universe (big bang theory and the cosmological argument)
  • explanations and evidence for the big bang theory
  • explanations for the cosmological argument.
• Theories about the origins of human life and our place in the universe:
  • arguments for evolution
  • arguments for teleological or ‘design’ theories
  • discuss and analyse the views of proponents and opponents of each view (evolution and ‘design.’) strengths and weaknesses of theories
• how the scientific method differs from faith based belief systems
• how deductive, and inductive methods of reasoning are applied.

Learners will:

• Analyse and evaluate the big bang theory and at least one cosmological argument
• Compare and contrast theories for the origin of the universe including how cosmological theories have been challenged by the big bang theory
• analyse and evaluate the theory of evolution and the teleological (design) argument
• compare and contrast theories for the origin of human life and our place in the universe including how design theories have been challenged by the theory of evolution
• analyse and evaluate, compare and contrast science and faith as ways of knowing

Humankind has long sought answers to the questions around the issue of how we live a good life. Modern Philosophers have drawn certain conclusions around what is needed for us to fulfil a good life. This unit examines the views of some of those philosophers.

There are opposing views on what the good life is. Some philosophical positions argue that life is a preparation for death and what people do in life will reverberate in the afterlife; this approach often leads to particular aims or goals in life that help to pass a test for entry to the afterlife. Certain religious views may argue that the good life is submitting to the Divine Will; some alternative views argue that living the good life requires fulfilling natural function; still others argue that we should live in the now, while we can, as death awaits us all.

Philosophical views on the good life vary greatly and are influenced by social, cultural and religious views.

Key questions are central to this study; these are linked to a particular philosopher and it is the views of that philosopher which will be studied to understand and address the questions.

This unit investigates four (4) key questions and the theories/concepts associated with the philosophers identified for this study. Learners will undertake an overview of all four questions (and associated philosophers) and investigate one (1) question and philosopher in detail:

• What roles do our bodies and our reasoning play in helping us achieve the good life? (Montaigne)
• What roles do biology, gender and freedom play in living a good life? (de Beauvoir)
• What is the role of life's difficulties in the formation of character? (Nietzsche)
• What is the role of the natural world in achieving the good life? (Thoreau)

What roles do our bodies and our reasoning play in helping us achieve the good life?

Michel de Montaigne (1553-1592) closely studies the minutiae of his own lived experience and his own ‘attempt’ at a good life in order to illuminate some general characteristics of good lives. His intimate essays explore the roles of reason, judgement, culture, bodies, sex, pleasure, aging and death in living a good life. In exploring these subjects, he studies what human lives actually involve - the daily realities of being human that are often overlooked in philosophy. He preaches sober thinking so that we may adopt more reasonable perceptions and expectations of human life and, in doing so, he brings the classical conception of humans as essentially rational ‘down to earth’ in his focus on embodied experience.

Learners who choose this inquiry will gain knowledge and understanding of:

• Montaigne’s account of the role of reason in a good life.
• The role of judgement in thinking about the body and culture.
• His philosophical method of examining his own life as one ‘attempt’ at the good life.

Evaluative questions relating to this inquiry include but are not limited to:

• Is Montaigne’s esteem for reason too low?
• Is a plural notion of good lives or a singular/universal conception of good life more appropriate?
• Does Montaigne’s suggested practical modesty inhibit human greatness?
• Does his method fail to offer a robust philosophy that provides real/concrete answers to the questions concerning the good life?
• Learners may, but are not required to, consider the arguments of different philosophers in evaluating Montaigne’s arguments.

What roles do biology, gender and freedom play in living a good life?

Existentialist feminist, Simone de Beauvoir (1908 - 1986), argues that many women are prevented from living good lives. Her critical project, developed in The Second Sex, examines the way that patriarchal societies constrain women and establish them as inferior ‘others’ who are considered less fully human than men. She analyses the roles of biology, culture, sexuality, love, marriage, raising children and work in producing women as ‘other’. Her emancipatory project is to empower women to realise that their constrained state is not natural or inevitable – there is no female ‘essence’ that determines the way women live. Women’s liberation involves creating oneself through authentically free action. Although primarily focusing on the lives of women, her existentialist philosophy also applies to men, who ought to reject the notion of a masculine essence in order to live authentically.

Learners who choose this inquiry will gain knowledge and understanding of:

• The ways women are cast as ‘other’ by society and the way this inhibits one’s ability to live a good life (focus on marriage and children).
• The rejection of essentialism in favour of existentialism.
• Freedom and transcendence as central to authentic lives.

Evaluative questions relating to this inquiry include but are not limited to:

• Is the rejection of essentialism justified? Do fundamental natural differences between women and men exist? To what extent?
• Does de Beauvoir’s anti-essentialist individualism marginalise important feminine virtues such as caring? Are difference feminists and maternal feminists right to argue that de Beauvoir only offers women ‘the freedom to be men’?
• In critiquing marriage and gender roles, does de Beauvoir undermine the harmonious functioning of society?
• Learners may, but are not required to, consider the arguments of different philosophers in evaluating de Beauvoir’s arguments.

What is the role of life's difficulties in the formation of character?

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 – 1900) argues that all claims to truth are, at base, expressions of power. This means that answers to the question of the good life are expressions of power by those who utter them. Greatness, for Nietzsche, involves the rejection of traditional morality, especially the ‘slave morality’ of Christianity and democracy. The great individual is a free spirit who creates their own values and freely expresses what Nietzsche calls the ‘will to power’. They are life affirming, strong, optimistic and passionate. Relevant arguments are developed throughout Nietzsche’s vast body of work, but are most clearly addressed in Beyond Good and Evil and The Genealogy of Morals. Nietzsche’s unashamedly elitist philosophy proposes that ‘pinnacles of humanity’ are the greatest concern in life and he sheds no tears for the ‘herd’ who are unwilling or unable to forge greatness in the crucible of suffering.

Learners who choose this inquiry will gain knowledge and understanding of:

• The will to power as the metaphysical foundation of Nietzsche’s argument concerning greatness.
• Master and slave morality, the transvaluation of values & overcoming hardship/suffering.
• Eternal recurrence and embracing all of life’s difficulties as the measure of greatness.

Evaluative questions relating to this inquiry include but are not limited to:

• Is Nietzsche’s rejection of slave morality justified? Is there value in humility, obedience, compassion, and self-sacrifice?
• Is Nietzsche’s elitist individualism problematic? Should society and community play some role in the good life?
• Should alleviating the suffering of the destitute be a greater focus than the cultural elite in human life?
• Learners may, but are not required to, consider the arguments of different philosophers in evaluating Nietzsche’s arguments.

What is the role of the natural world in achieving the good life?

Henry David Thoreau (1817 - 1862) proposed a worldview that contradicted the dominant views of his time in arguing that people are a part of nature as opposed to being masters of nature. He endows nature with spiritual significance and argues that by observing nature, we can apprehend truth – especially moral truths. In his major work, Walden, Thoreau advocates a simple and self-sufficient life lived in a natural environment and argues that material possessions inhibit living ‘deliberately’ and well. His essay, ‘On Civil Disobedience,’ argues that when one believes the laws of one’s nation to be unjust, they ought to non-violently resist. In other words, one ought to act morally rather than conform to a government’s laws.

Learners who choose this inquiry will gain knowledge and understanding of:

• Thoreau’s arguments concerning nature, truth and the ethics of perception.
• His arguments about simplicity, economy and self-sufficiency.
• His political/moral philosophy and civil disobedience.

Evaluative questions relating to this inquiry include but are not limited to:

• Is Thoreau’s romantic conception of nature relevant and/or justified in the Anthropocene era?
• Is Thoreau’s emphasis on independence problematic? Should there be a greater focus on community, family and interdependence?
• Is it reasonable to expect people with dependents (e.g. families and children) to go to jail for their beliefs? Or is civil disobedience only a reasonable expectation of independent people?
• Learners may, but are not required to, consider the arguments of different philosophers in evaluating Thoreau’s arguments.

In completing Unit 5, learners will gain key knowledge and understanding of:

• Philosophers’ responses to key philosophical questions in relation to the ‘good life’
• Analysis of philosophical arguments on the ‘good life’
• The strengths and weaknesses of philosophical responses to living the ‘good life’
• How philosophers’ responses apply to modern life
• analysis of how philosophical responses to the ‘good life’ may address problems of modern life
• epistemic basis for beliefs on the good life.

Learners will:

• Analyse and evaluate the writings of the selected philosopher(s) on the good life
• Investigate the chosen philosopher and nominated question in detail
• Analyse ‘evaluative’ questions or critical responses to the philosopher’s writings on the nominated question
• analyse and evaluate the relevance of the philosophers’ ideas, concepts and arguments to contemporary issues

Work Requirements
Minimum Work Requirements for Philosophy

Table 6: Minimum Work Requirements for Philosophy

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. To learn more, see TASC's quality assurance processes and assessment information.

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.

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.

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.

The external assessment for this course will comprise:

• a three hour written exam assessing criteria: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5

For further information see the current external assessment specifications and guidelines for this course available in the Supporting Documents below.

The assessment for Philosophy Level 3 will be based on the degree to which the learner can:

Philosophy Level 3 (with the award of):

EXCEPTIONAL ACHIEVEMENT

HIGH ACHIEVEMENT

COMMENDABLE ACHIEVEMENT

SATISFACTORY ACHIEVEMENT

PRELIMINARY ACHIEVEMENT

The final award will be determined by the Office of Tasmanian Assessment, Standards and Certification from 12 ratings (7) from the internal assessment, 5 from external assessment).

The minimum requirements for an award in Philosophy Level 3 are as follows:

EXCEPTIONAL ACHIEVEMENT (EA)
10 ‘A’, 2 ‘B’ ratings (4 ‘A’s, 1 ‘B’ from external assessment)

HIGH ACHIEVEMENT (HA)
5 ‘A’, 5 ‘B’, 2 ‘C’ ratings (2 ‘A’, 2 ‘B’s, 1 ‘C’ from external assessment)

COMMENDABLE ACHIEVEMENT (CA)
6 ‘B’, 4 ‘C’ ratings (2 ‘B’s, 2 ‘C’s from external assessment)

SATISFACTORY ACHIEVEMENT (SA)
10 ‘C’ ratings (3 ‘C’s from external assessment).

PRELIMINARY ACHIEVEMENT (PA)
6 ‘C’ ratings.

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 forwarded 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.

The accreditation period for this course has been renewed from 24 January 2019 until 31 December 2021.

During the accreditation period required amendments can be considered via established processes.

Should outcomes of the Years 9-12 Review process find this course unsuitable for inclusion in the Tasmanian senior secondary curriculum, its accreditation may be cancelled. Any such cancellation would not occur during an academic year.

Version 1 – Accredited on 19 May 2017 for use from 1 January 2018. This course replaces Philosophy (PHL315113) that expired on 31 December 2017.

Version 1.a - Clarification of terminology made 9 March 2018.

Accreditation renewed on 22 November 2018 for the period 1 January 2019 until 31 December 2021.

Version 2 - Amendments 4 February 2019. Changes to Criterion (C) 2 standard element (E) 3, C3 E2, C3 E5 & C4 E1. Major modifications to course content in: Unit 2 (Mind/Body Problem); Unit 3 Free Will; Unit 4 (Life, the Universe and Everything); Unit 5 (Philosophers and the Good Life).

Version 2.a - Amendments 1st April 2019. Rewording of Unit 5 investigative question for de Beauvior.

Accreditation renewed on 15 October 2021 for the period 1 January 2022 until 31 December 2025.

Version 2.b - Minor changes in consultation with Years 9 to 12 Learning:

• Clarify what learners will know and do for each unit
• Remove repeated (but inconsistent) content
• Remove or clarify reference to philosophers or works where it was unclear what learners needed to study and what examiners could expect learners to know
• Remove or clarify incorrect or confusing use of philosophical terminology
• Correct incorrect or inconsistent capitalisation
• Rework some confusing, incorrect or unclear wording
• Apply more consistent use of font style and size

TABLE: APPLYING EPISTEMOLOGY TO UNITS 2-5

GLOSSARY

TERMS USED IN LEARNING OUTCOMES AND STANDARDS