📚 Philosophy Case Study Exercises for Year 7 WJEC | 哲学案例分析：Year 7 WJEC实战演练
Welcome to your first set of philosophy case studies. In WJEC Year 7 Philosophy, you will learn how to think clearly about puzzling situations, ask sharp questions, and build arguments. A case study is a detailed example that helps us test our moral intuitions, our ideas about identity, freedom, and justice. This article gives you ten exciting thought experiments, each with guided analysis and reflection tasks. By working through them, you will practise the skills needed to succeed in your lessons and assessments: explaining, reasoning, comparing, and reaching a justified conclusion. Do not rush; philosophy is about depth, not speed. Write down your answers, discuss with friends, and stay curious.
欢迎来到你的第一批哲学案例分析。在WJEC初一哲学课程中，你将学习如何清晰地思考令人困惑的情境，提出尖锐的问题，并构建论证。案例分析是一个详细的例子，可以帮助我们检验自己的道德直觉，关于身份、自由和正义的想法。这篇文章为你准备了十个刺激的思想实验，每个都带有引导分析和反思任务。通过逐一完成，你能锻炼在课堂和评估中取得成功的技能：解释、推理、比较，并得出有理有据的结论。不要匆忙；哲学追求深度而非速度。写下你的回答，与朋友讨论，保持好奇心。
1. What Is a Case Study in Philosophy? | 什么是哲学案例分析？
A case study in philosophy is not just a story; it is a tool that pushes you to question your assumptions. It usually presents a dilemma or a puzzling scenario, where no easy answer is obvious. Philosophers use case studies to explore concepts like right and wrong, knowledge, reality, and the self. In WJEC Year 7, you will be asked to identify the central moral or conceptual problem, consider different perspectives, and support your view with reasons. The key steps are: describe the situation, identify the conflict, evaluate possible responses, and conclude thoughtfully. Always ask ‘Why?’ and ‘What if?’ before settling on an answer.
哲学中的案例分析不仅仅是一个故事；它是一个推动你质疑自身假设的工具。它通常呈现一个两难或令人困惑的场景，其中没有明显的简单答案。哲学家使用案例来探索对错、知识、实在和自我等概念。在WJEC初一课程中，你会被要求识别核心的道德或概念问题，考虑不同视角，并用理由支持你的观点。关键步骤是：描述情境，确定冲突所在，评估可能的回应，并深思熟虑地得出结论。在确定答案之前，总要问“为什么？”和“如果……会怎样？”。
2. The Trolley Problem: Saving Lives | 电车难题：拯救生命
Imagine a runaway trolley is speeding toward five workers who cannot escape. You are standing next to a lever. If you pull it, the trolley will switch to a side track where one worker is trapped. Do you pull the lever, actively causing one death but saving five? This classic thought experiment tests two ethical approaches: utilitarianism, which says the best action is the one that maximises overall happiness or minimises suffering, and deontological ethics, which says some actions are wrong in themselves, regardless of the consequences. Pulling the lever saves more lives, but you would be directly involved in causing harm to the one person. Reflect: is there a difference between letting someone die and killing someone?
想象一辆失控的电车正冲向五名无法逃脱的工人。你站在一根拉杆旁。如果拉动拉杆，电车将转向侧轨，那里有一名工人被困。你会拉动拉杆，主动导致一人死亡但救下五人吗？这个经典思想实验检验了两种伦理方法：功利主义认为最佳行为是最大化总体幸福或最小化痛苦，而义务论伦理学认为某些行为本身是错误的，不论后果如何。拉动拉杆可以挽救更多生命，但你会直接参与对那一个人造成伤害。反思：让某人死亡和杀死某人之间有区别吗？
Try filling out the table below to organise your thoughts on the Trolley Problem.
试填写下表，整理你对电车难题的想法。
| Perspective | Key Reasons to Pull the Lever | Key Reasons NOT to Pull the Lever |
|---|---|---|
| Utilitarian | Five lives are more valuable than one; overall suffering is reduced. | A rule allowing sacrifice of one for many could lead to dangerous precedents. |
| Deontological | The intention is to save lives, not to kill. | It is always wrong to use a person merely as a means to an end. |
Perspective / 视角 | Utilitarian / 功利主义 | Deontological / 义务论
Key Reasons to Pull the Lever / 拉动拉杆的关键理由 | Key Reasons NOT to Pull the Lever / 不拉动拉杆的关键理由
Five lives are more valuable than one; overall suffering is reduced. / 五条生命比一条更有价值；总体痛苦减少。
A rule allowing sacrifice of one for many could lead to dangerous precedents. / 允许为多数牺牲一人的规则可能导致危险的先例。
The intention is to save lives, not to kill. / 意图是拯救生命，而非杀人。
It is always wrong to use a person merely as a means to an end. / 仅仅把人当作实现目的的工具总是错误的。
Your task: Write a short paragraph explaining what you would do and why. Then, list one strength and one weakness of your position.
你的任务：写一段简短的文字，解释你会怎么做以及为什么。然后列出你的立场的一个优点和一个缺点。
3. The Lifeboat Dilemma: Fairness and Survival | 救生艇困境：公平与生存
A ship sinks. Only one lifeboat is afloat, but it is designed for 10 people. There are 20 survivors in the water. Some are strong swimmers, some are elderly, and one is a doctor. The sea is freezing, and rescue is hours away. Who should get a place in the lifeboat? Should we choose based on usefulness, need, or by drawing lots? This dilemma forces us to think about distributive justice: how we fairly allocate scarce resources among people with conflicting claims. One view holds that we should maximise the number of lives saved (utility). Another argues that we must respect each person equally, perhaps by random selection. A third view suggests giving priority to the most vulnerable.
一艘船沉没了。只有一艘救生艇漂浮着，但它设计载客10人。水中有20名幸存者。有些是强壮的游泳者，有些是老人，其中一位是医生。海水冰冷，救援还有几个小时。谁应该得到救生艇上的位置？我们应该依据有用性、需求还是抽签来选择？这个困境迫使我们思考分配正义：我们如何在有冲突需求的人们之间公平地分配稀缺资源。一种观点认为，我们应该最大化获救人数（功利）。另一种则主张我们必须平等尊重每个人，也许通过随机选择。第三种观点建议优先考虑最脆弱的群体。
List your top three criteria for selecting survivors. Then, apply them: which five people might you exclude? Does your choice change if one survivor is a close family member? Write a paragraph defending your chosen principle of fairness.
列出你选择幸存者的三个首要标准。然后，应用这些标准：你可能会排除哪五个人？如果其中一位幸存者是你的家人，你的选择会改变吗？写一段话为你选择的公平原则辩护。
4. The Lying Doctor: Honesty and Consequences | 说谎的医生：诚实与后果
Dr. Lopez is a kind-hearted doctor. Her patient, Mr. Chen, has a serious illness and asks, ‘Is it bad, Doctor?’ She knows that telling the truth might make him give up hope, and his mental state could worsen his condition. However, she also believes that patients deserve to know the truth about their own health. If she lies and says, ‘You will be fine,’ Mr. Chen might feel relieved and fight harder, but she would be deceiving him. Would it be morally right to lie in this case? This scenario explores the tension between benevolence (kindness) and truth-telling. Some ethical theories, like virtue ethics, focus on the character of the doctor: a compassionate person might sometimes prioritise care over strict truth. Others, like Kantian ethics, argue that lying is always wrong because it violates a universal moral duty.
洛佩兹医生是一位心地善良的医生。她的病人陈先生患有重病，他问：“医生，我的病很严重吗？”她知道说实话可能会让他失去希望，而他的精神状态可能使病情恶化。然而，她也相信病人有权了解自己健康的真相。如果她撒谎说“你会好起来的”，陈先生可能会感到安心并且更努力地抗争，但她就是在欺骗他。在这种情况下说谎在道德上是否正确？这个情境探讨了仁慈（善良）与诚实之间的张力。有些伦理理论，如美德伦理学，关注医生的品格：一个富有同情心的人可能会优先考虑关怀而非严格的诚实。其他如康德伦理学则主张说谎总是错误的，因为它违反了一项普遍的道德义务。
Write two short dialogues: one where Dr. Lopez tells the complete truth, and one where she offers hope without lying entirely (maybe by saying ‘We will do everything we can’). Which response shows more respect for the patient? Explain.
写两段简短对话：一段是洛佩兹医生说出全部真相，另一段是她不完全说谎但给予希望（比如“我们会尽一切努力”）。哪种回应表现出对病人更多的尊重？请解释。
5. The Ring of Gyges: Power and Morality | 裘格斯戒指：权力与道德
Plato tells the story of a shepherd named Gyges who finds a magical ring that makes him invisible when he turns it. With this power to escape detection, Gyges enters the palace, seduces the queen, kills the king, and takes over the kingdom. The story raises a deep question: if you could do anything without being caught or punished, would you still be a moral person? Does morality depend only on fear of consequences, or is there a reason to be just even when no one is watching? Some argue that people are only good because they fear punishment. Others say that true justice is valuable for its own sake; a just soul is more at peace than an unjust one.
柏拉图讲述了一个名叫裘格斯的牧羊人的故事，他找到了一枚魔戒，转动戒指就能让自己隐形。拥有了这种逃脱侦查的能力后，裘格斯进入王宫，引诱了王后，杀死国王，并夺取了王国。这个故事引出一个深刻的问题：如果你可以做任何事而不被抓到或惩罚，你还会做一个有道德的人吗？道德仅仅依赖于对后果的恐惧，还是有理由在无人注视时也要保持公正？有些人认为人们行善只是因为他们害怕惩罚。另一些人说，真正的正义因其自身而有价值；一个正义的灵魂比一个不义的灵魂更为安宁。
Imagine you find a ring of invisibility for one day. Write a list of three things you would do, and three things you would NOT do. For each item, give a reason. Do your reasons rely on consequences, principles, or something else?
想象你得到了一枚可以隐形一天的戒指。列出你会做的三件事和不会做的三件事。每一件事都要给出理由。你的理由是基于后果、原则还是其他？
6. The Ship of Theseus: Identity and Change | 忒修斯之船：同一性与变化
The ancient Greeks told of the ship of the hero Theseus. Over centuries, as the wooden planks decayed, Athenians replaced them one by one, until eventually not a single original plank remained. Is it still the Ship of Theseus? Now, imagine that every replaced plank was saved and used to rebuild a second ship. Which ship, if either, has the better claim to be the real Ship of Theseus? This puzzle introduces the philosophy of identity and persistence through change. One answer is that identity depends on continuous history (the repaired ship). Another says identity is about the arrangement of parts, so either could be the original. A third view argues that ‘sameness’ is just a label we find useful. This case helps you practise conceptual analysis: what makes something the same thing over time?
古希腊人讲述了英雄忒修斯的船的故事。几个世纪以来，当木板腐烂时，雅典人逐一更换它们，直到最终没有一块原始木板保留下来。它还是忒修斯之船吗？现在，想象每一个被更换的木板都被保存下来，并用来重建第二艘船。这两艘船中，哪一艘更有资格被称为真正的忒修斯之船？这个谜题引入了关于同一性和历经变化而存在的哲学。一种答案是，同一性取决于连续的历史（修过的船）。另一种是说同一性取决于部件的排列，所以任何一艘都可能是原来的船。第三种观点认为“相同”只是我们用起来方便的标签。这个案例帮助你练习概念分析：是什么让一个东西随着时间推移还保持同一个？
Apply the same pattern of thought to yourself: you were a baby years ago, but now all your cells have been replaced. Are you the same person? Write a short argument with at least two different views, then state your conclusion.
将同样的思维模式应用到你自己身上：多年前你是一个婴儿，但现在你所有的细胞都已经被替换了。你还是同一个人吗？写一段简短的论证，包括至少两种不同的观点，然后陈述你的结论。
7. The Case of the Stolen Medicine: Rules vs. Outcomes | 被偷的药：规则与结果
Heinz’s wife is dying. A new medicine could save her, but the pharmacist who invented it charges ten times the cost of production. Heinz can only raise half the money. The pharmacist refuses to lower the price or accept delayed payment. Out of desperation, Heinz considers breaking into the pharmacy and stealing the drug. Should he do it? This case, adapted from Lawrence Kohlberg’s moral development research, puts respect for property law and social rules in tension with the value of a human life. A strict rule-follower says stealing is always wrong because if everyone stole, society would collapse. A consequentialist argues that saving a life is more important than obeying a rule in this specific case. Some will suggest that the pharmacist has a moral duty to help, even if the law does not require it.
海因茨的妻子濒临死亡。有一种新药可以救她，但发明该药的药剂师要价是生产成本的十倍。海因茨只能筹到一半的钱。药剂师拒绝降价或接受延期付款。绝望之下，海因茨考虑闯入药店偷药。他应该这么做吗？这个案例改编自劳伦斯·科尔伯格的道德发展研究，它把对财产法和社会规则的尊重与一条生命价值置于紧张关系中。严格的规则遵循者说偷窃总是错误的，因为如果人人都偷窃，社会就会崩溃。结果论者则争辩说，在这个特定案例中，拯救生命比遵守规则更重要。有些人会提出，药剂师有道德义务去帮助，即使法律没有要求。
Stage the argument: write a short play debate between a character who says ‘Law is absolute’ and one who says ‘Life trumps law’. Then, be the judge: which side has the stronger argument? Give your verdict with reasons.
上演一场辩论：写一段短剧，让一个说“法律是绝对的”的角色和一个说“生命高于法律”的角色进行辩论。然后，你来做评判：哪一方的论点更强？给出你的判决并附上理由。
8. The Ignorant Voter: Responsibility in Democracy | 无知的选民：民主中的责任
In a school election for student council, Jamie has not read any candidate statements and does not know the issues. He plans to vote for the candidate with the funniest name. Is he acting responsibly? This scenario applies not just to schools but to real-world democracies. One view says every citizen has a right to vote however they like, even foolishly, because freedom is paramount. Another argues that voting is a moral duty that requires knowledge; casting an uninformed vote is harmful because it affects others. A third angle asks: should there be a test before people are allowed to vote? This would conflict with equal rights. The case introduces political philosophy and the ethics of participation. It also tests your ability to balance competing values: liberty, equality, and community well-being.
在一次学校学生会的选举中，杰米没有阅读任何候选人的陈述，也不了解各项议题。他打算把票投给名字最有趣的候选人。他是否在负责任地行事？这个情境不仅适用于学校，也适用于现实世界的民主制度。一种观点认为，每个公民都有权按自己的意愿投票，即使是愚蠢地投票，因为自由是至高无上的。另一种观点认为，投票是一项需要知识储备的道德义务；投下没有根据的票是有害的，因为它影响他人。第三个角度问：是否应该在允许人们投票之前设置一个测试？这会与平等权利冲突。此案例介绍了政治哲学和参与的伦理。它还考验你平衡竞争性价值的能力：自由、平等和社群福祉。
Design a three-question quiz that you think every voter should be able to answer about their school or country. Explain why those questions matter. Would requiring such a quiz be fair? Why or why not?
设计一份包含三个问题的小测验，你认为每个选民都应该能就他们的学校或国家回答出来。解释这些问题为什么重要。要求进行这样的测验是公平的吗？为什么是或为什么不是？
9. The Transplant Surgeon: Sacrificing One for Many | 移植外科医生：牺牲一人救多人
Dr. Park is a brilliant transplant surgeon. Five of her patients are dying: one needs a heart, two need kidneys, one needs a liver, and one needs lungs. There are no donors available. A healthy young traveller comes to the hospital for a routine check-up. Dr. Park realises that if she secretly kills this traveller and transplants his organs, she could save five lives. No one would ever find out. Almost everyone would agree this is horrifically wrong. But why? If we accepted pulling the lever in the Trolley Problem because five lives outweigh one, why not kill the traveller? This case challenges us to explain the principles that constrain our actions even when the outcome seems better. Possible reasons: it violates the patient’s right not to be killed; it would destroy trust in doctors; it uses a person as a mere means; it crosses a strict moral line between letting die and killing.
帕克医生是一位杰出的移植外科医生。她的五位病人濒临死亡：一位需要心脏，两位需要肾脏，一位需要肝脏，一位需要肺。没有可用的捐献者。一位健康的年轻旅行者来医院进行常规体检。帕克医生意识到，如果她秘密杀死这名旅行者并移植他的器官，她可以拯救五条生命。永远不会有人发现。几乎每个人都会同意这是极其错误的。但为什么？如果我们接受在电车难题中拉动拉杆是因为五条生命胜过一条，为什么不杀掉旅行者？这个案例挑战我们去解释那些约束我们行为的原则，即使结果看似更好。可能的理由：它侵犯了病人不被杀害的权利；它会摧毁对医生的信任；它把人仅仅当作工具；它跨越了让死与杀之间的严格道德界限。
Write a letter from the perspective of Dr. Park’s conscience, explaining to her why the traveller must not be harmed, even in secret. Use at least three distinct reasons.
从帕克医生良心的角度写一封信，向她解释为什么旅行者绝不能被伤害，即使是秘密的。至少使用三个不同的理由。
10. The Time-Traveller’s Grandfather: Free Will and Paradox | 时间旅行者的祖父：自由意志与悖论
Suppose you travel back in time to before your grandfather met your grandmother. You meet your grandfather as a young man and, by accident or on purpose, you cause an event that prevents him from ever meeting your grandmother. As a result, one of your parents is never born, which means you are never born. But if you were never born, you could not have travelled back in time to prevent the meeting. Logical contradiction. This famous paradox helps explore time, causality, and free will. One solution is that time travel is logically impossible. Another is that the universe simply would not allow such an event to happen; any action you take will inevitably lead to the meeting you tried to prevent (a self-consistent timeline). The paradox also challenges the idea that we can change the past: perhaps the past is fixed.
假设你穿越回到了你祖父遇见你祖母之前的时间。你遇见了年轻的祖父，并由于意外或故意导致了一个事件，阻止了他认识你的祖母。结果，你的父母之一没有出生，这意味着你从未出生。但如果你从未出生，你就不可能穿越回去阻止那次相遇。逻辑矛盾。这个著名悖论有助于探索时间、因果关系和自由意志。一种解决方案是时间旅行在逻辑上是不可能的。另一种是，宇宙根本不会允许这样的事件发生；你采取的任何行动都不可避免地会导致你试图阻止的那次相遇（自洽的时间线）。该悖论也挑战了我们可以改变过去的想法：也许过去是固定的。
Could a time-traveller change history, or does every attempt fail? Write a short story outline showing one attempt that seems to succeed but actually ensures the original outcome. Then explain what this means for free will.
时间旅行者能够改变历史，还是每一次尝试都会失败？写一个简短的故事概要，展示一次看似成功、但实际上确保了原始结果的尝试。然后解释这对自由意志意味着什么。
11. Reflection: How to Analyse a Philosophical Case Study | 反思：如何分析哲学案例
By now, you have practised analysing moral, personal identity, and political dilemmas. For any case study, use this framework: (1) Identify the core question or conflict — what exactly is the problem? (2) List the relevant facts and stakeholders — who is affected? (3) Generate at least two possible responses or solutions. (4) Evaluate each response using principles such as fairness, harm, rights, and virtues. (5) Articulate your own considered view, acknowledging its weaknesses. Remember, in philosophy, the quality of your reasoning matters more than getting a single ‘right’ answer. Your teacher will look for clarity, depth, balance, and the ability to respond to objections. Practice by writing a one-paragraph analysis for any one of the cases above, using the five-step method.
到现在为止，你已经练习分析了道德、人格同一性和政治困境。对于任何案例分析，使用以下框架：(1) 识别核心问题或冲突——问题究竟是什么？ (2) 列出相关事实和利益相关者——谁受到影响？ (3) 生成至少两种可能的回应或解决方案。 (4) 使用公平、伤害、权利和美德等原则来评估每种回应。 (5) 明确提出你自己的深思熟虑的观点，并承认其弱点。请记住，在哲学中，推理的质量比获得单一的“正确”答案更重要。你的老师会看重清晰、深度、平衡以及回应反驳的能力。运用这五个步骤的方法，选择上面任何一个案例，写一段简短的分析作为练习。
Finally, reflect on your progress: which case study was the most challenging, and why? Philosophy is like a muscle — it grows stronger with exercise. Keep questioning, keep writing, and enjoy the journey of thinking.
最后，反思一下你的进步：哪个案例分析最具挑战性，为什么？哲学就像肌肉——越锻炼越强壮。持续提问，持续写作，享受思考的旅程。
Published by TutorHao | Philosophy Revision Series | aleveler.com
更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）
屏轩国际教育cambridge primary/secondary checkpoint, cat4, ukiset,ukcat,igcse,alevel,PAT,STEP,MAT, ibdp,ap,ssat,sat,sat2课程辅导，国外大学本科硕士研究生博士课程论文辅导