2024 IB DP Philosophy 模擬試題連答案詳解

### Possible Philosophical Approaches

Candidates are expected to identify the core philosophical issues in the stimulus and explore them systematically. The stimulus deals with several key themes of the Core Theme 'Being human':
- **Personal Identity and Continuity:** The classic 'Ship of Theseus' paradox applied to human consciousness and physical replacement. Does identity persist if the constituent material is completely changed?
- **The Mind-Body Problem and Consciousness:** The transition from biological material (neurons) to synthetic material (silicon) and its implications for subjective experience (qualia).
- **Functionalism vs. Biological Naturalism:** Can a silicon-based functional equivalent of a human brain produce a genuine subjective 'self', or is consciousness uniquely tied to biological systems?
- **The Self and Subjectivity:** The question of *who* is there to feel (the nature of the 'I' or the subjective observer).

### Key Concepts and Thinkers to Integrate

- **John Locke's Psychological Continuity Theory:** Discusses the self as defined by consciousness and memory rather than bodily or material substance. Candidates might argue that if memory and consciousness persist through the silicon transition, the person remains the same.
- **Derek Parfit's Bundle Theory / Reductionism:** Suggests there is no fixed, enduring 'self' (the 'ego theory'), but rather a bundle of changing mental states (the 'bundle theory'). In this light, the gradual transition is not a loss of a unified 'soul' or 'self' because such a unified entity never existed in the first place.
- **Thomas Nagel and 'What Is It Like to Be...':** Explores the subjective, first-person character of experience. Can a silicon-based mind have phenomenal consciousness (qualia), or does it lack the subjective 'what-it-is-likeness' of being human?
- **John Searle's Biological Naturalism and the Chinese Room Argument:** Argues that syntax is not semantics and simulation is not duplication. A silicon brain might mimic human behavior and functional outputs, but it cannot produce genuine understanding or consciousness, which Searle claims are biological processes.
- **David Chalmers and 'The Hard Problem' of Consciousness:** Differentiates between the easy problems (cognitive processing, functional behavior) and the hard problem (why physical processes should give rise to inner experience at all). He introduces the concept of 'philosophical zombies'—systems functionally identical to humans but lacking inner experience.
- **Functionalism and Substrate Independence (e.g., Hilary Putnam, Daniel Dennett):** Argues that mental states are defined by their functional roles rather than the physical medium in which they are realized. Thus, silicon neurons could successfully preserve both consciousness and identity.

### Structure of a High-Scoring Essay

1. **Introduction:** Clearly identify the philosophical dilemmas raised by the stimulus (e.g., the Ship of Theseus applied to the human mind, the hard problem of consciousness, and personal identity). Formulate a clear, coherent thesis statement.
2. **Analysis of Personal Identity (The Ship of Theseus parallel):** Evaluate different perspectives on what constitutes the continuity of the self (material substance vs. psychological continuity).
3. **Analysis of Consciousness and Medium (Silicon vs. Carbon):** Discuss whether subjective experience (qualia) is dependent on biological substrates (Searle) or can be realized in other mediums (Functionalism).
4. **The Nature of Subjectivity ('Who will be there?'):** Critically examine the concept of the 'observer' or the 'I'. Contrast substantial views of the soul/mind (Descartes) with reductionist views (Parfit/Hume) or materialist functionalist views (Dennett).
5. **Counter-arguments and Critical Evaluation:** Balance the arguments for substrate independence against the qualitative losses associated with artificial life/minds.
6. **Conclusion:** Summarize key arguments and provide a well-reasoned personal stance on what the stimulus reveals about the essence of 'Being human' in an age of technological transformation.

### IB Philosophy Essay Marking Criteria (out of 25)

- **21–25 Marks (Excellent):**
- The essay shows a highly sophisticated understanding of the philosophical issues raised by the stimulus.
- Highly relevant and precise references to philosophical concepts (qualia, functionalism, biological naturalism) and thinkers (Locke, Searle, Chalmers, Parfit).
- The argument is compelling, highly structured, coherent, and displays critical self-reflection.
- Directly addresses the core theme 'Being human' throughout.

- **16–20 Marks (Good):**
- The essay identifies and explores the key philosophical issues in the stimulus with clear understanding.
- Good use of relevant philosophical concepts and thinkers to support arguments.
- The structure of the essay is logical, and the argument is balanced with appropriate counter-arguments.
- Clear focus on the core theme of 'Being human'.

- **11–15 Marks (Satisfactory):**
- The essay identifies some philosophical issues in the stimulus, but may focus too much on description rather than critical analysis.
- Explains relevant concepts and thinkers, but with some gaps in understanding or integration.
- Structure is present but could be more cohesive; argument is somewhat balanced.

- **6–10 Marks (Basic):**
- The essay shows a limited understanding of the stimulus and the core theme.
- Minimal or superficial use of philosophical terminology, with few or no thinkers integrated properly.
- The argument is weak, repetitive, or poorly structured.

- **1–5 Marks (Elementary):**
- Shows little to no understanding of the stimulus or the requirements of a philosophy essay.
- Lacks structure, clarity, and philosophical content.

An outstanding essay will follow a structured philosophical exploration: [1] Introduction: Define 'moral progress' (the idea that moral beliefs and practices become objectively better over time) and state the central thesis. [2] Arguments for moral progress: Discuss Peter Singer's 'expanding circle' of moral consideration, the historical decline of institutionalized horrors like chattel slavery, and how moral realism supports the idea of discovering objective moral truths. [3] Arguments against moral progress: Introduce moral relativism and emotivism (e.g., A.J. Ayer), which argue that moral claims lack truth-value and thus cannot 'progress'. Introduce Friedrich Nietzsche's genealogy of morals, arguing that moral changes are shifts in power dynamics rather than objective improvements. [4] Synthesis and Critical Evaluation: Discuss the difficulty of establishing a neutral standard of progress without circular reasoning. Consider if progress is instrumental rather than objective (e.g., societies becoming more efficient at reducing suffering). [5] Conclusion: Summarize the arguments, concluding to what extent moral progress can be defended as a coherent concept.

Assessment Criteria: [Knowledge and Understanding (0-6 marks)]: Demonstrates detailed knowledge of ethical theories, meta-ethics, and the concept of moral progress. [Analysis (0-6 marks)]: Clearly analyzes arguments for and against moral progress, using philosophical vocabulary accurately. [Evaluation (0-6 marks)]: Critically evaluates the strength of both sides, making a well-supported judgment. [Relevance and Structure (0-7 marks)]: The response is well-structured, focused on the prompt, and maintains a coherent line of argument.

An outstanding essay will follow a structured philosophical exploration: [1] Introduction: Define natural evil (suffering caused by natural events like earthquakes or diseases, distinct from moral evil caused by human agency) and state how it challenges the core attributes of the classical monotheistic God (omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, and supreme goodness). [2] The Challenge of Natural Evil: Detail J.L. Mackie's logical problem of evil (the inconsistent triad) and William Rowe's evidential problem of evil (the existence of pointless, intense suffering makes God's existence highly improbable). Explain why natural evil is harder to address than moral evil because human free will cannot easily account for it. [3] Philosophical Responses/Theodicies: Discuss Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense (and its limits regarding natural events, unless attributed to non-human free agents like demons). Analyze John Hick's Irenaean 'soul-making' theodicy, where natural obstacles are necessary for spiritual and moral growth. Explore skeptical theism (e.g., Stephen Wykstra), which argues that finite humans should not expect to understand the infinite God's reasons for permitting evil. [4] Critical Evaluation: Assess whether these theodicies successfully defend the rationality of belief. For instance, evaluate if the sheer scale of natural suffering is disproportionate to any potential 'soul-making' value. [5] Conclusion: Synthesize the debate, offering a reasoned judgment on whether natural evil renders theism irrational or merely challenging.

Assessment Criteria: [Knowledge and Understanding (0-6 marks)]: Shows comprehensive knowledge of the problem of evil, specifically natural evil, and major theodicies. [Analysis (0-6 marks)]: Provides a clear philosophical analysis of the logical and evidential formulations of the problem. [Evaluation (0-6 marks)]: Offers a critical assessment of the proposed solutions (theodicies) and their logical coherence. [Relevance and Structure (0-7 marks)]: Presents a structured, focused, and persuasive philosophical argument.