IB Philosophy Paper 1 Prompts

I had a giggle when I looked up IB Philo paper prompts and got some seriously hard-core stuff from Cambridge.  Not the same thing.  Not at all.  Though I do feel like I could legitimately answer several of the political philosophy stuff.  XD

Here I will happily post some prompts given to me by my teacher, by some other teachers, by IB, and I'll randomly throw in the Cambridge ones too.  Though I won't tell you which!

Before I start, I'll send you a link to a helpful page for paper 1: Click here!

Paper 1a: What is a Human Being?

Ok.  So Paper 1 is the one where they give you a number of stimuli that you proceed to talk about philosophically.  The question is always "What is a Human Being?" so you can always go in prepared.  My suggestion?  TALK ART.  They always give you a picture and a passage, and if you can argue that art is an integral part of being a human being, you are SET FOR LIFE.  Also, these things frequently have some amount of technology involved, so use that, too.

Here are some pics/passages you can work with if you want.  I will also talk with you about how to organize your mind for this essay, it's not the hardest to write, but it's the easiest to mess up.

Ok, imagine you got this image for your prompt.  What do you do?  I have broken this down into a lovely list for you, because I'm nice! 

1) What issue arises with the picture? another way to think is: what is happening?  What is the message the artist is conveying, or what can you make the artist say?  Clearly, it is saying that humans are as easily tied to their devices as a dog to a post.

2) What can you argue here? You know the message, now what is your take on it?  My advice:  You are not wrong.  You can say that dogs are humans, too.  As long as you can defend it, you can use it.  This is going to eventually be a thesis, so write it down!

3) What philosophies can you use?  Here is the place where most people immediately jump.  They tend to go straight for the philosophies without forming an opinion.  These papers are NOT notes!  Do not treat them as such!  Now, think outside the box on this if you want.  You can also use a few standbyes, like determinism or existentialism (see?  Useful stuff, you can almost always use it on this paper!) but if you feel comfortable with ethics, you can talk about that too.  Ethics are very flexible.

4) What counterarguments can you use?  always think of the counterarguments first.  You can get away with a flimsy counterargument as long as you have some, so while you're in the early thinking stages, get those counters going.  Also, you have a pretty good idea of what your stance is, and counterarguments are good for cleaning up those fuzzy lines a little.  I always find that it is much harder to write a paper if I have no idea what the weaknesses are.

5) Plan your claims.  Yes.  Philosophy papers are a little different than analytical, English papers, but not by much.  An English paper has a 5paragraph format, while Philosophies typically have a 6paragraph structure.  Intro, claim, counterclaim, claim, counterclaim, conclusion.  You should never have a paragraph talking only about the philosophies.  Repeat.  Never have a paragraph talking about the philosophies.  If there isn't an argument, cut it out.

6) Write the paper!  Self-explanatory.  If you take your time planning, you should be FINE here.  

7) Revise.  You do NOT want any spelling or grammatical flaws.  It will instantly make your paper seem crappy.  Also, avoid any and all colloquialisms or clichés.  If you have even one, you aren't making the paper more relatable, you're turning into garbage.

Phew.  That list is actually very good for three of your "papers."  Paper 2a is the exception, since it is a data-dump.  This did not used to be a thing.  I believe that 2a exists so that you DO NOT have to include too much data in 2b.  You do not have to relate 2a to 2b.  They are separate.  More on those later.

Paper 1b: Optional Themes

My least favorite.  You get three optional themes in this section, where any prompt can be thrown at you as long as it is under the umbrella of one of them.  Here are the themes (categories):

1. Aesthetics
2. Epistemology
3. Ethics
4. Philosophy and contemporary society
5. Philosophy of religion
6. Philosophy of science
7. Political philosophy

Good news:  You do not have to commit to one upon going in.  Bad news: you might go in feeling really strong about ethics but the prompt SUCKS.  You only prepared for ethics!  What now?  

Calm down.  Seriously, panicking will only waste time.  You have more important things to worry about.  You have time NOW, get a good grasp on at least two, but do not forget about the others.  I know, the IB thing says SL people only need to know one!  They're lying.  Go in having a basic grasp of three or four so you can pick the prompt you can argue with the best.

Here's a hint:  Pick the genre you do not agree with.  Not which you like the least (Ethics. Ugh!), which you can argue with.  If you don't agree with Locke's tabula rosa, argue with it.  In my notes, I tried to provide you with two very distinct stances on the same subject for this very reason.  (Plato&Machiavelli, Descartes&Locke)

So that is my talk about paper 1.  Prompts?  I'll give you five each for the three I prepare you for: ethics, religion, and epistemology.

Religion
1)Critically discuss the nature and value of religious experience.
2)Analyse and evaluate at least one rational argument that claims to prove the existence of God.
3)“The universe is better with some evil in it than it could be if there were no evil.” Some believers use this argument as a defence for God’s existence when confronted with the presence of evil in the world. Does it successfully eliminate the claim that God does not exist if evil does?
4)In an age of ever growing scientific knowledge and understanding, to what extent can a belief in a life after death be justified?
5)Explain and discuss the impact of religious belief on ethics.


Ethics
1) Critically assess the claim that moral judgements have meaning & value only if they are based on the current trends of the majority
2)When, if ever, is blame justified?

3)Critically assess the view that ethical judgements should be based on natural properties or nature.
4)Critically evaluate the claim that world poverty is an ethical issue.

5)Is it the case that a morally good person is also a happy person? Develop a philosophical response to this question.


Epistemology
1)Can there be non-analytic a priori knowledge? If so, how?
2)Suppose you believe that p. Do practical interests influence whether you also know that p?
3)Explain Plato’s distinction between knowledge, belief and ignorance.
4)Anyone who sees must see something.ʼ Discuss.
5)*Is a brain in a vat justified in believing that it has hands?

 *I like that one :)