2025 IB DP Philosophy Practice Paper with Answers

Possible Philosophical Interpretations of the Stimulus: 1. Personal Identity and Memory: Locke's Psychological Continuity: John Locke argued that personal identity consists in the continuity of consciousness through memory. If an AI system can store, recall, and reconstruct these memories in a way that mimics or preserves human consciousness, does it become an extension of the person's identity, or does it disrupt psychological continuity by externalizing it? Narrative Identity: Paul Ricoeur’s concept of narrative identity suggests that we construct who we are through stories. The stimulus suggests a shared narrative between a human and an AI mimicking a deceased loved one, raising questions about whether a narrative remains authentic when one of the participants is an algorithmic representation. 2. The Extended Mind and Technology: Clark and Chalmers (The Extended Mind) thesis suggests that the mind is not bound by the skull but can extend into the environment, including technological tools. An AI system preserving memories and emotional cues could be interpreted as an extension of the protagonist's cognitive and emotional apparatus. Heidegger on Technology: Martin Heidegger warned against Enframing (Ge-stell), where technology reduces everything, including human relationships and experiences (like grief), to standing reserve. The 'museum of mirrors' metaphor highlights the danger of alienating ourselves from authentic existential experiences by converting them into digital data. 3. Authenticity, Grief, and Existentialism: Sartrean Bad Faith: Jean-Paul Sartre emphasizes radical freedom and the responsibility to confront existential realities like death and grief. Using technology to escape the isolation of grief could be critiqued as bad faith—an attempt to evade the painful but authentic reality of human mortality and loss. Simulation vs. Reality: Jean Baudrillard’s concepts of simulacra and simulation: the voice of the grandmother is a representation of a representation, blurring the line between the real and the artificial, leading to a state of hyperreality. Suggested Essay Structure: Introduction: Identify the central tension raised by the stimulus (the outsourcing of human memory and grief to technology) and formulate a clear thesis statement. Body Paragraph 1 (Memory and Identity): Explore the Lockean view of memory as the foundation of identity. Body Paragraph 2 (The Extended Mind vs. Alienation): Analyze the concept of the extended mind vs. Heideggerian critique. Body Paragraph 3 (Existential Authenticity and Grief): Bring in Existentialism to discuss the nature of grief. Conclusion: Synthesize the arguments and state a nuanced position.

The essay is assessed using the standard IB Diploma Programme Philosophy Paper 1 assessment criteria (total 25 marks): Criterion A: Expression and presentation of ideas (5 marks): 5 marks for clear, precise, and logically structured language with correct terminology; 3-4 marks for mostly clear structure; 1-2 marks for confusing language. Criterion B: Knowledge and understanding of philosophical concepts and materials (5 marks): 5 marks for deep understanding of concepts like the extended mind, psychological continuity, and existential authenticity with accurate references to philosophers; 3-4 marks for good understanding with minor gaps; 1-2 marks for superficial understanding. Criterion C: Analysis and evaluation (10 marks): 9-10 marks for highly critical and balanced analysis with robust counter-arguments; 7-8 marks for strong analysis with a clear argument; 5-6 marks for descriptive rather than analytical work; 1-4 marks for limited attempt to analyze. Criterion D: Personal response and independent thinking (5 marks): 5 marks for excellent integration of the stimulus throughout the essay with original insights; 3-4 marks for good use of the stimulus initially; 1-2 marks for little or no reference to the stimulus.

Introduction: Define deontology (duty-based ethics, famously advocated by Immanuel Kant) which asserts that actions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of their consequences. Contrast this with consequentialism (utilitarianism, advocated by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill) which argues that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its outcomes. Detail the main arguments in favor of absolute moral duties: First, they respect human autonomy and dignity by refusing to treat individuals merely as a means to an end (Kant's formula of humanity). Second, absolute duties provide moral clarity, consistency, and a strong safeguard against the subjective justification of harmful actions for the 'greater good'. Detail the main counterarguments and criticisms: First, the problem of conflicting duties (e.g., the duty to tell the truth versus the duty to preserve life, as in the classic 'inquiring murderer' scenario). Second, the moral rigidity of ignoring consequences can lead to catastrophic or clearly unethical outcomes, which strikes many as counterintuitive. Third, virtue ethics offers an alternative by focusing on practical wisdom (phronesis) and character rather than rigid adherence to rules. Conclusion: While absolute duties provide indispensable protections for human rights and prevent the exploitation of individuals, a complete moral framework must find a way to reconcile absolute principles with a realistic consideration of consequences in complex, real-world situations.

Marking Criteria: 1. Knowledge and understanding (6 marks): Award marks for accurate identification of key ethical theories (Deontology, Consequentialism/Utilitarianism) and relevant philosophers (Kant, Mill, etc.). 2. Analysis (6 marks): Award marks for unpacking the core philosophical tension between rule-following and outcome-evaluation, demonstrating how absolute duties function and their logical limits. 3. Evaluation (6 marks): Award marks for critical assessment of both sides, including the strengths and weaknesses of Kant's Categorical Imperative and consequentialist responses. 4. Relevance and structure (7 marks): Award marks for a well-focused, coherent essay structure with a clear introduction, sustained argument, and justified conclusion.

Introduction: Introduce the pragmatic theory of truth, primarily associated with William James, Charles Sanders Peirce, and John Dewey, which equates the truth of a belief with its practical efficacy, utility, or 'cash value'. Contrast this with the correspondence theory of truth (which defines truth as alignment with objective reality) and the coherence theory of truth (which defines truth as logical consistency within a system of beliefs). Arguments in favor of Pragmatism: First, it avoids the metaphysical impasse of the correspondence theory, which struggles to explain how human minds can directly access and verify a 'mind-independent' external reality. Second, it aligns with a dynamic, evolutionary view of knowledge where ideas are tools for adaptation and problem-solving. Third, it recognises the active role of human inquiry and the experimental nature of science. Counterarguments and Criticisms: First, the 'useful lie' objection: some false beliefs (such as optimistic self-delusions) may be highly useful for a person's mental health or success, yet they remain factually false. Conversely, some truths are trivial or even harmful to know, yet they remain true. Second, the threat of relativism: if truth is defined solely by utility, then what is true for one group or individual might not be true for another, which undermines the objective basis of scientific and moral inquiry. Third, the correspondence critique: intuitively, we believe something is true because it matches external facts, not because believing it makes our lives easier. Conclusion: The pragmatic theory of truth successfully highlights the functional, active dimension of human knowledge, but it cannot completely discard the need for empirical correspondence. A robust epistemology must balance practical utility with a commitment to objective, external constraints.

Marking Criteria: 1. Knowledge and understanding (6 marks): Award marks for accurate explanations of the pragmatic theory of truth (James, Peirce) and its alternatives (correspondence, coherence). 2. Analysis (6 marks): Award marks for analyzing the implications of defining truth as utility and exploring how this affects scientific and everyday beliefs. 3. Evaluation (6 marks): Award marks for assessing key criticisms, such as the 'useful lie' objection, relativism, and the defense of objective reality. 4. Relevance and structure (7 marks): Award marks for a structured, coherent essay that directly addresses the prompt, maintains logical flow, and reaches a reasoned conclusion.

A successful response must identify and explain two core elements from the text: 1. The Traditional Role of the Philosopher: The author presents this as isolated ('comfortable exile'), passive ('observer of human action'), and merely historical or taxonomic ('cataloging concepts like species in a museum'). This is depicted as an inward retreat. 2. The Demand for Transformation: The author argues that contemporary technologies (artificial intelligence and virtual realities) are fundamentally restructuring human existence ('redesign the very fabric of human experience'). Because of this, philosophy cannot wait for actions to occur before analyzing them ('merely retrospective'); it must become 'anticipatory and collaborative'. To maintain its relevance and fulfill its 'original, ancient promise to examine life where it is actually being lived,' philosophy must actively engage with and shape technological design ('shape the algorithms that dictate human choice').

Band 1 (1-3 marks): The response shows a basic understanding of the text, merely paraphrasing some lines or identifying that philosophy needs to change without explaining why or how. Band 2 (4-6 marks): The response identifies both the traditional role (passive, abstract) and the proposed changes (active, digital) described in the text. There is some explanation of why technology prompts this shift, though the analysis of 'anticipatory' vs 'retrospective' inquiry may be limited. Band 3 (7-8 marks): The response provides a clear, structured explanation of both aspects. It explicitly contrasts the retrospective/museum-like traditional philosophy with the anticipatory/collaborative contemporary philosophical activity, referencing specific terms like AI, virtual reality, and algorithms. Band 4 (9-10 marks): The response shows an excellent, nuanced grasp of the text's core philosophical argument. It clearly articulates the ontological shift implied by technology 'redesigning' human experience, justifying why philosophical activity must become outward-facing and design-focused to remain true to its foundational purpose.

### Part (a) Solution Guidelines [6 Marks]
Candidates should focus on explaining the central philosophical issues in the text:
- **The erosion of moral agency**: The transition of humans from active moral deliberators to passive consumers of algorithmic outputs.
- **The concept of "moral atrophy"**: The idea that moral decision-making is a practice or habit (akin to Aristotelian virtue ethics) that must be exercised to be preserved. By outsourcing it, we risk losing our capacity for empathy, responsibility, and navigating moral ambiguity.
- **The illusion of efficiency**: The critique that "algorithmic optimization" replaces the complex qualitative dimensions of human ethical life with quantitative simplification.

### Part (b) Solution Guidelines [9 Marks]
Candidates should offer a balanced critical discussion and personal reflection:
- **Critical Discussion**: Contrast the extract's pessimistic view with an alternative perspective.
- *Example 1 (Utilitarianism/Consequentialism)*: Algorithms could minimize human bias, maximize fair distributions, and increase utility more reliably than flawed human actors. This views ethical outcomes as primary, rather than the internal experience of the agent.
- *Example 2 (Heideggerian Philosophy of Technology)*: Technology as "enframing" (Gestell), where everything, including human decision-making, is turned into a standing reserve for efficiency.
- **Reflection on "Doing Philosophy"**: Candidates must connect the issue to their personal experience of doing philosophy. They should discuss how philosophical inquiry (e.g., active questioning, dealing with open-ended dilemmas, resisting easy answers) serves as a lived counter-practice to the passive "comfort" of algorithmic solutions. This highlights philosophy as an active cognitive and ethical exercise that resists cognitive automation.

### Part (a) Marking Scheme [Max 6 marks]
- **5–6 marks**: The response clearly identifies and explains the core issues (moral atrophy, agency versus optimization) with precision. It directly engages with the text and uses accurate philosophical terminology.
- **3–4 marks**: The response identifies some key issues but lacks depth in explaining the connection between outsourcing and the erosion of ethical capacity. The analysis is more descriptive than explanatory.
- **1–2 marks**: The response shows a basic or superficial understanding of the text, listing general ideas without clear philosophical focus.

### Part (b) Marking Scheme [Max 9 marks]
- **8–9 marks**: The discussion is highly critical, contrasting the text effectively with another philosophical perspective (e.g., Utilitarianism, Deontology, or Heidegger). The personal reflection on "doing philosophy" is deeply integrated, demonstrating a clear personal and philosophical insight into how active inquiry counters technological passivity.
- **5–7 marks**: There is a clear attempt to contrast the text with another perspective, though one side may be more developed. The reflection on doing philosophy is present and relevant, but may feel slightly detached from the main critical discussion.
- **3–4 marks**: The critical discussion is limited or one-sided. The reflection on doing philosophy is superficial, descriptive, or treated as an afterthought.
- **1–2 marks**: The response lacks a clear structure, offering minimal evaluation and failing to connect the topic to the experience of doing philosophy.