📚 Year 7 CAIE Philosophy: Case Study Practice Drills | 案例分析实战演练
In Year 7 CAIE Philosophy, learning to analyse real-life situations and thought experiments is essential. This article offers a series of engaging case studies for you to practise. Each case will challenge you to think critically, consider multiple perspectives, and justify your reasoning. By working through these drills, you will develop the skills to tackle philosophical problems with confidence.
在Year 7 CAIE哲学课程中，学会分析现实情境和思想实验至关重要。本文提供了一系列引人入胜的案例分析供你练习。每个案例都会挑战你进行批判性思考，考虑多种观点，并论证你的推理。通过完成这些练习，你将培养自信解决哲学问题的能力。
1. What is a Philosophical Case Study? | 什么是哲学案例分析？
A philosophical case study is a carefully described situation that raises an ethical, epistemological, or metaphysical question. It invites you to examine your own beliefs and explore why you hold them. Unlike a simple story, a case study demands analysis: you must identify the key issue, consider the implications of different actions, and evaluate arguments for and against each option.
哲学案例分析是一个精心描述的情境，它提出一个伦理、认识论或形而上学的问题。它邀请你审视自己的信念，并探索你为什么持有它们。与简单的故事不同，案例分析要求分析：你必须识别关键问题，考虑不同行动的后果，并评估支持和反对每种选择的论据。
2. The CASE Method: A Simple Framework | CASE方法：一个简单的分析框架
To analyse any case study, you can use the CASE method:
Clarify the situation and identify the moral or philosophical question.
Analyse the possible choices and their consequences.
Synthesise different viewpoints by comparing them.
Evaluate which option is most justified and why. This simple framework will guide you through each drill.
要分析任何案例，你可以使用CASE方法：
澄清（Clarify）情境并确定道德或哲学问题。
分析（Analyse）可能的选择及其后果。
通过比较来综合（Synthesise）不同的观点。
评估（Evaluate）哪个选项最合理以及为什么。这个简单的框架将指导你完成每个练习。
3. Case Study 1: The White Lie | 案例分析1：善意的谎言
Your friend has a new haircut that you think looks terrible. She asks, “Do you like my haircut?” You know she is very sensitive and easily hurt. Should you tell the truth or tell a white lie to spare her feelings?
你的朋友换了一个你觉得很难看的新发型。她问：“你喜欢我的发型吗？”你知道她非常敏感，很容易受伤。你应该说实话还是用善意的谎言来照顾她的感受？
Clarify: The dilemma pits honesty against compassion. Is it always wrong to lie, even when the lie prevents emotional pain? Analyse: If you tell the truth, your friend may be upset, but she could learn from it. If you lie, she remains happy but lives with a false belief. Synthesise: Some argue that respect for another person means telling the truth, while others claim that kindness should override blunt honesty. Evaluate: You must decide which value—truth or kindness—takes priority in this situation and justify why.
澄清：这个两难处境将诚实与同情对立起来。即使是为了避免情感痛苦，说谎也总是错的吗？分析：如果你说实话，朋友可能会伤心，但她能从中吸取教训。如果你说谎，她保持开心，但活在一个虚假的信念里。综合：有人认为尊重他人意味着说实话，而另一些人则主张善意应胜过直白的诚实。评估：你必须判断在这种情况下哪个价值——真相还是善意——更重要，并说明理由。
4. Case Study 2: The Extra Cake | 案例分析2：多余的蛋糕
At a party, there are 10 children and only 9 slices of cake. You are in charge of distributing the slices. Everyone wants a piece, but there isn’t enough. What is the fairest way to distribute the cake? Should you give it to the child who arrived first, the youngest, the one who helped bake it, or should you cut each slice smaller so everyone gets a taste?
聚会上有10个孩子，却只有9块蛋糕。你负责分配。每个人都想要一块，但数量不够。最公平的分配方式是什么？应该给最先到的孩子、最小的孩子、帮忙烘焙的孩子，还是把每块切得更小，让每个人都能尝到一点？
Clarify: This is a problem of distributive justice—how should limited goods be shared fairly? Analyse: Different principles give different answers: need (the hungriest child), desert (the one who helped), equality (everyone gets the same amount), or even random chance. Synthesise: Each principle has strengths and weaknesses; focusing on equality might satisfy more people, while giving to the helper might seem fairer to some. Evaluate: Choose a principle and defend it against objections. You might argue that slicing equally, even if pieces are small, respects all individuals equally.
澄清：这是一个分配正义的问题——有限的资源应该如何公平地分享？分析：不同的原则会给出不同的答案：按需（最饿的孩子）、按功绩（帮忙的孩子）、平等（每个人得到同样的分量），甚至随机分配。综合：每种原则都有优缺点；强调平等可能让更多人满意，而分给帮手对某些人来说似乎更公平。评估：选择一种原则并为之辩护，反驳反对意见。你可以主张平均分配，哪怕每块很小，也能平等地尊重了每个人。
5. Case Study 3: Breaking a Promise | 案例分析3：违背承诺
You promised your mother you would clean your room before playing video games. Then your best friend calls and invites you to an urgent online match that starts in five minutes. If you keep your promise, you will miss the game and disappoint your friend. If you break it, you will disappoint your mother. Which obligation is stronger?
你答应妈妈在玩电子游戏之前会打扫房间。这时最好的朋友打电话来，邀请你参加一场五分钟后开始的紧急线上比赛。如果你遵守承诺，就会错过比赛，让朋友失望；如果你违背承诺，就会让妈妈失望。哪一项义务更重要？
Clarify: The conflict is between two duties: a promise to a parent versus loyalty to a friend. Analyse: A promise creates a moral obligation; breaking it makes you untrustworthy. However, a friendship also carries duties of mutual support. Synthesise: Some philosophers argue that promises must be kept no matter what (Kantian view), while others say the consequences matter more—if the harm of missing the game is small, why not ask your mother to swap duties? Evaluate: Think about the long-term effects on trust. Would keeping your promise and explaining to your friend be the more principled choice?
澄清：冲突来自两项责任：对家长的承诺与对朋友的忠诚。分析：承诺会形成道德义务，违背它会让你变得不可信。然而，友谊也承载着互相支持的义务。综合：一些哲学家认为无论如何都必须遵守承诺（康德式观点），而另一些人则认为后果更重要——如果错过比赛的伤害很小，为什么不请妈妈同意交换任务时间？评估：思考对信任的长期影响。遵守承诺并向朋友解释，是否更有原则性？
6. Case Study 4: The Cheating Friend | 案例分析4：作弊的朋友
During a test, you see your best friend glancing at another student’s paper. You know she has been struggling with the subject and feels anxious. Would you report her to the teacher, quietly tell her to stop, or do nothing?
考试时，你看到最好的朋友偷看旁边同学的卷子。你知道她这门课学得很吃力，而且非常焦虑。你会向老师举报她，悄悄告诉她停止，还是什么都不做？
Clarify: The problem involves integrity, loyalty, and fairness. Is your first duty to uphold academic rules or to support a friend? Analyse: Reporting protects fairness for all students but could damage your friendship. Doing nothing allows cheating to continue and may harm your friend’s character. Telling her to stop privately might correct the behaviour while preserving friendship. Synthesise: Loyalty is valuable, but true friendship might mean helping your friend do the right thing. Evaluate: The best option likely balances care for your friend with a commitment to fairness—perhaps telling her to stop and offering to study together later.
澄清：这个问题涉及诚信、忠诚和公平。你的首要责任是维护学术规则，还是支持朋友？分析：举报维护了全体学生的公平，但可能破坏友谊。什么都不做让作弊继续，可能伤害朋友的品格。私下告诉她停手可能纠正行为，同时保持友谊。综合：忠诚固然重要，但真正的友谊或许意味着帮助朋友做正确的事。评估：最佳选择或许是在对朋友的关心和对公平的承诺之间达成平衡——比如劝她停手，并提议之后一起学习。
7. Case Study 5: The Lost Wallet | 案例分析5：丢失的钱包
You find a wallet on the street containing £50 and an ID. No one is watching. The lawful and moral action is to return it, but you could really use the money to buy a new game. Why be moral when no one is looking?
你在街上捡到一个钱包，里面有50英镑和一张身份证。没有人在场。合法且道德的做法是归还它，但你真的可以用这笔钱买一款新游戏。没人看见时，为什么还要遵守道德？
Clarify: The question is whether moral behaviour depends on being watched. Should we be good only for fear of punishment? Analyse: If you keep the money, you benefit immediately, but you cause harm to the unknown owner who lost it. If you return it, you feel honest and maintain a trustworthy character. Synthesise: Some thinkers, like Plato’s story of the Ring of Gyges, suggest people are just only because they fear consequences. Others believe that virtue is its own reward. Evaluate: Consider what kind of person you want to become. Choosing honesty when nobody watches strengthens your integrity—it shapes your character into one that can be trusted.
澄清：问题在于道德行为是否依赖于他人的注视。我们应该仅仅因为害怕惩罚才做好事吗？分析：如果你留下钱，你立刻获益，但给丢失钱包的陌生人造成了伤害。如果你归还，你会感到诚实，并维护可信赖的品格。综合：一些思想家，比如柏拉图笔下“古各斯的戒指”故事，认为人们公正只是因为害怕后果。另一些人则相信美德本身就是奖赏。评估：想想你想成为什么样的人。在无人看见时选择诚实，会加强你的正直——它将你的品格塑造成一个值得信赖的人。
8. Case Study 6: Animal Rights or Human Needs? | 案例分析6：动物权利还是人类需求？
A new housing estate is planned on a field where a colony of wild rabbits lives. The houses would provide homes for 50 homeless families, but the rabbits would lose their habitat and many might die. Is it acceptable to build the houses, sacrificing the rabbits for human benefit?
计划在一片野兔群居的场地上修建一个新住宅区。这些房屋将为50个无家可归的家庭提供住所，但野兔将失去栖息地，许多可能会死亡。为了人类利益牺牲野兔，是可以接受的吗？
Clarify: This is a clash between human welfare and respect for animal life. Does the moral circle include only humans, or also sentient beings? Analyse: From a human-centred view, meeting human needs for shelter outweighs animal interests. From an animal rights view, causing death and suffering to sentient creatures is wrong unless absolutely necessary. Synthesise: Compromises could be explored, such as relocating the rabbits or building on a different site. Evaluate: If alternatives exist, building on the field is harder to justify. If no other land is available, the debate becomes more difficult—weighing the depth of suffering against the number of families helped.
澄清：这是人类福祉与尊重动物生命之间的冲突。道德圈只包括人类，还是也包括有感知的生物？分析：从人类中心的角度看，满足人类的住所需求胜过动物的利益。从动物权利的角度看，若非绝对必要，给有感知生命带来死亡和痛苦就是错误的。综合：可以探讨妥协方案，例如迁走兔子或另择场地。评估：如果存在其他选择，强行在此修建就更难辩护。如果没有其他可用土地，争论就变得更为困难——需要权衡痛苦的程度与受助家庭的数量。
9. Case Study 7: The Time Machine Dilemma | 案例分析7：时间机器困境
Imagine you have a time machine. You could travel back and stop a terrible historical event, such as a war, before it starts. But doing so might erase your own existence or change the world in unpredictable ways. Is it right to interfere with the past?
想象你有一台时间机器。你可以回到过去，在一场可怕的战争等历史事件发生前阻止它。但这样做可能会抹去你自己的存在，或者以无法预测的方式改变世界。干涉过去是正确的吗？
Clarify: The case explores whether we have a duty to prevent great suffering even if it means altering reality and our own lives. Analyse: Saving thousands from suffering seems heroic, yet you have no idea what the new timeline would bring. Maybe an even worse event occurs. Synthesise: Utilitarians would likely approve preventing mass suffering. Others argue that playing with forces we do not understand is too risky. Evaluate: Think about the value of respect for the past and the people who lived it. Does the present have more right to exist than a possible different future? There is no easy answer, which is what makes it a great philosophical puzzle.
澄清：这个案例探讨的是，即使改变现实和我们自己的生命，我们是否有责任去阻止巨大的苦难。分析：从苦难中拯救成千上万的人看似英勇，但你完全不知道新的时间线会带来什么。也许会发生更糟糕的事件。综合：功利主义者很可能赞同阻止大规模痛苦。另一些人则认为玩弄我们不了解的力量风险过高。评估：思考对过去及曾经生活过的人的尊重有何价值。当下就比另一种可能的未来更有权存在吗？这里没有简单的答案，这正是它成为伟大哲学难题的原因。
10. Case Study 8: The Self-Driving Car (Simplified) | 案例分析8：自动驾驶汽车（简化版）
A self-driving car’s brakes fail. It must either continue straight and hit a pedestrian crossing the road, or swerve and crash into a wall, harming the passenger inside. Should the car be programmed to minimise overall harm, even if that means sacrificing the passenger, or to protect the passenger no matter what?
一辆自动驾驶汽车的刹车失灵了。它要么继续直行，撞上一个过马路的行人，要么转向撞墙，伤害车内的乘客。汽车应该被编程为尽量减少总体伤害，哪怕这意味着牺牲乘客，还是无论如何都要保护乘客？
Clarify: This modern version of the trolley problem asks how we should design moral machines. Analyse: A utilitarian approach would choose the action that saves more lives or causes less injury, thus hitting the wall if the passenger is less likely to die. A rights-based approach says actively choosing to harm the passenger violates their right to safety. Synthesise: Engineers face a real ethical dilemma in autonomous vehicle design—whose safety is prioritised? Evaluate: As a Year 7 philosopher, you need not solve programming, but you can explore your own instinct. Would you want a car that treats all lives equally, or one that puts your family first? Justify your reasoning.
澄清：这是电车难题的现代版本，问的是我们应该如何设计道德机器。分析：功利主义方法会选择拯救更多生命或造成更少伤害的行动，因此如果乘客死亡概率较低，就选择撞墙。基于权利的方法则认为，主动选择伤害乘客侵犯了他们的安全权利。综合：工程师在自动驾驶汽车设计中面临现实的伦理困境——应该优先保护谁的安全？评估：作为一名Year 7的哲学家，你无需解决编程问题，但可以探索自己的直觉。你希望汽车平等对待所有生命，还是把你的家人放在首位？请为你的推理辩护。
11. Bringing It All Together: Writing Your Own Analysis | 综合运用：撰写你自己的分析
Now that you have examined eight diverse case studies, it is time to try writing a full analysis on your own. Choose any case from this article or a new one from your textbook. Use the CASE method as a checklist. Start by clarifying the dilemma in your own words. Then analyse at least two possible choices with their likely outcomes. Next, synthesise by comparing different philosophies, such as utilitarianism or deontology. Finally, evaluate which choice is most justified and explain why, acknowledging counterarguments. Remember to write in clear, organised paragraphs.
现在你已经研究了八个不同的案例，是时候尝试自己撰写一份完整的分析了。可以选择本文中的任一案例，或是课本中的新案例。把CASE方法当作一份检查清单。首先用自己的话澄清困境。然后分析至少两种可能的选择及其可能的结果。接下来通过比较不同哲学（如功利主义或义务论）来综合观点。最后评估哪个选择最为合理，并解释理由，同时承认反对论点。记住要用清晰、有条理的段落书写。
12. Key Takeaways | 关键要点
Philosophical case studies train you to think rigorously about difficult questions. They reveal that most real-world problems do not have a single correct answer, but require reasoning, empathy, and critical evaluation. The more you practise with the CASE method, the sharper your ethical thinking becomes. Always ask: what is really at stake? Who is affected? Which values conflict? And crucially, what makes a reason a good reason? Keep these questions in mind, and you will excel in your Year 7 CAIE Philosophy course and beyond.
哲学案例分析能训练你严谨地思考困难的问题。它们揭示了大多数现实世界的问题都没有唯一正确答案，而是需要推理、同理心和批判性的评价。你越多地练习CASE方法，你的伦理思维就会越敏锐。始终要问：真正利害攸关的是什么？谁受到了影响？哪些价值发生了冲突？而最关键的是，什么让一个理由成为好理由？将这些提问牢记于心，你就会在Year 7 CAIE哲学课程以及今后的学习中脱颖而出。
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Cancel reply