Skip to content

HL extension · Philosophy and contemporary issues

International Baccalaureate · IB Diploma · Philosophy · HL · Topic 4

4.1

Philosophy and contemporary issues

IB Diploma Programme Philosophy HL (first assessment 2025; current guide). This topic is the COMPULSORY HL EXTENSION — Philosophy and contemporary issues: two contemporary issues studied philosophically, examining the NATURE, FUNCTION, MEANING and METHODOLOGY of philosophical activity itself. The extension has two sides: the issue-content (the contemporary debates, each run with the core's craft) and the meta-questions (what philosophy IS when it does this — its method, its limits, its public role). This handout kits the issues the extension rewards and teaches the meta-craft, with worked framings. All examples are original.

Must-know for the HL extension:

Family Content
meta what philosophy is: conceptual analysis, argument, the a priori
method philosophy vs science; thought experiments; intuitions
AI and technology mind, personhood and machine intelligence
environment obligations to future generations and non-humans
public role applied ethics, consulting, the philosopher in the city
4.2

The nature of philosophical activity

The extension's first question is what philosophy IS when it engages an issue. Three answers shape the course: philosophy as conceptual analysis 概念分析 (the unpacking of the concepts the issue runs on — what is a person? a cause? a right?); philosophy as argument 论证 (the discipline of topic 01: premises, validity, the suppressed premise exposed); philosophy as the a priori 先验 study of what is possible (not what is the case — that is science's business — but what could be, what must be, what is consistent). From these follow the METHOD questions: how does philosophy relate to SCIENCE (does ethics need neuroscience? does philosophy of mind need AI? — the autonomy-of-philosophy debate); what thought experiments 思想实验 are for (intuition-pumping or disguised science fiction?); and what weight intuitions 直觉 carry when they clash (across cultures, across centuries — the experimental-philosophy challenge). The meta-skill the paper marks: doing philosophy ABOUT doing philosophy — naming the method while using it.

Worked meta-framing. On AI and mind: the question “can a machine think?” splits into a conceptual part (what would COUNT as thinking — the personhood criteria of topic 01 applied) and an empirical part (what the system does — science's part); philosophy's function is to keep the split visible, and the contemporary debate confuses itself wherever the parts blur.

Vocabulary Train
English
conceptual analysis/kənˈseptʃuːəl əˈnæləsɪs/
argument/ˈɑːɡjuːmənt/
a priori/ə praɪˈɔːri/
thought experiment/θɔːt ekˈsperɪmənt/
intuition/ɪntjuːˈɪʃn/
4.3

The contemporary-issue kits

Artificial intelligence 人工智能 and technology: machine minds (the Turing test's behaviourism; the Chinese room's reply; the criteria of personhood applied to systems), machine ethics (can a system be a moral AGENT — or only a tool?), and the technology of the self (algorithmic choice and freedom: is a recommendation engine's nudged choice still mine? — compatibilism's “right way” tested by design).

Environment 环境: obligations to future generations (the non-identity problem — our policies determine WHO exists, so whom do we harm?), to NON-HUMANS (sentience as the criterion — animal ethics from personhood's toolkit), and the value questions (is nature intrinsically valuable, or instrumentally? — the aesthetics kit applied to wilderness).

Identity 身份, culture and the public world: the socially constructed self (de Beauvoir's othering in the algorithmic age — which selves do systems amplify?); post-truth and knowledge (testimony, epistemology of the feed: whose justification counts when the sources are chosen for me?); and philosophy's PUBLIC ROLE — applied ethics in institutions (bioethics committees, technology councils): does the philosopher advise, or merely tidy?

Worked issue-framing. Environment, non-identity: a policy choice determines the timing of conception, so the future people affected would not exist otherwise. Harming them seems impossible (no particular person is worse off than they would otherwise have been — there is no otherwise). Yet depletion feels wrong. The analysis runs: the conceptual claim (harm requires a counterfactual), the argument (it makes depletion harmless), the objection (rights of whoever lives: each future person has a right to a liveable world, whoever they turn out to be), and the meta-point — the case shows philosophy doing its distinctive work: the paradox is conceptual, and no data settle it.

Vocabulary Train
English
artificial intelligence/ˌɑːtɪˈfɪʃl ɪnˈtelɪdʒəns/
environment/enˈvaɪrənmənt/
identity/aɪˈdentɪti/
4.4

Checklist

  • Philosophy as analysis, argument and the a priori; the autonomy debate (does ethics need science?); thought experiments and intuitions; the meta-skill of naming the method while using it (meta).
  • AI: the Turing test and the Chinese room; personhood criteria on systems; machine moral agency; algorithmic choice and compatibilism (AI).
  • Environment: non-identity; future generations' rights; sentience and non-humans; intrinsic vs instrumental value (environment).
  • Identity and public world: algorithmic othering; the epistemology of the feed; philosophy's advisory role (public).
  • The worked meta-framing and issue-framing; the paper names method and issue together. All framings original.

Supported preparation: HL unseen text and normative bridges

Scope and prerequisites

IB philosophy first assessment 2025. Core Being human; one optional theme at SL, two at HL; one school-selected prescribed text. HL extension is Philosophy and contemporary issues. No unverified prescribed text is chosen by default.

Mapped preparation outcomes: ib_philosophy_hl.4.1, ib_philosophy_hl.4.2. Read the matching native lesson first. Actual approved choices, evidence and final learner work remain separate.

Source vocabulary

accountability 问责性; normative claim 规范性主张.

Explanation and worked method

For an unseen text, identify its question, premises, conclusion and method, then evaluate what it is doing philosophically. Descriptive accuracy does not automatically establish a normative decision rule.

Original classroom evidence panel for HL unseen text and normative bridges

Task: “The new algorithm is more accurate, so it should make every decision.” Supply the missing assumption and evaluate it.

The argument assumes accuracy always outweighs accountability, rights and other values. Challenge that priority with a case where explanation or appeal matters; acknowledge that accuracy can still have substantial value.

Independent transfer

Rewrite the algorithm conclusion to incorporate accountability without ignoring accuracy.

Attempt independently before reading the model.

Checked original model

Use the system for a specified decision class only where relevant validation, explanation, appeal and human accountability meet justified standards. Accuracy can support this conditional recommendation but cannot by itself override every right or value. Test the revised premises and exceptions.

These are authored formative expectations, not official IB descriptors. Accept other justified arguments with evidence and material limits.

Source and task holds

This supplement teaches the method for this part of the course. The full assessment criteria and any texts your school chooses come from your teacher.

Interactive lessons on this topic

Work through it step by step, with instant-check exercises.

More topics in International Baccalaureate · IB Diploma · Philosophy · HL

Log in or create account

IGCSE, A-Level & AP