📚 Case Study Practical Exercises | 案例分析实战演练
Welcome to your philosophy case study toolkit. In Year 8 CCEA Philosophy, you are often asked to explore real-life or imagined dilemmas. A ‘case study’ is a short story that contains a difficult choice or a puzzling question. Learning to unpack these stories will sharpen your thinking, help you spot arguments, and teach you to defend your own viewpoint with reasons. This article walks you through nine practical cases and a step-by-step method for analysing them. By the end, you will be ready to tackle any philosophical scenario with confidence.
欢迎使用你的哲学案例分析工具包。在 Year 8 CCEA 哲学课程中，你经常需要探讨真实或虚构的两难困境。“案例”就是一个包含艰难选择或令人困惑的问题的短篇故事。学会拆解这些故事，会让你的思维更加敏锐，帮助你识别论点，并教会你如何用理由来捍卫自己的观点。本文将带你演练九个实战案例，并提供一个循序渐进的分析方法。读完全文，你将能够自信地应对任何哲学情境。
1. What Is a Philosophical Case Study? | 什么是哲学案例分析？
A philosophical case study is not just a story; it is a tool for testing ideas. It presents characters facing a moral or logical problem, and your job is to identify the key concepts at stake, such as justice, truth, or happiness. Unlike a maths problem, there is rarely one correct answer. Instead, you are marked on how well you reason, how clearly you explain different viewpoints, and whether you support your conclusion with evidence from the case.
哲学案例不仅仅是一个故事，它是检验思想的工具。案例会呈现面临道德或逻辑难题的人物，而你的任务是找出其中涉及的关键概念，比如正义、真相或幸福。与数学题不同，这类问题很少只有一个正确答案。取而代之的是，评分依据在于你的推理质量、你解释不同观点的清晰程度，以及你是否用案例中的证据来支持自己的结论。
In CCEA assessments, you might be shown a scenario such as a pupil finding a lost wallet or a scientist making a discovery that challenges religious beliefs. Your response should show that you understand the ethical or philosophical issue, can weigh up arguments on both sides, and can present a reasoned personal stance.
在 CCEA 的评估中，你可能会看到一个情景，例如一名学生捡到一个钱包，或一位科学家的发现挑战了宗教信仰。你的回答应表明你理解了其中的伦理或哲学问题，能够权衡正反两方的论点，并给出一个经过推理的个人立场。
2. A Systematic Approach: The FACT-R Model | 系统分析方法：FACT-R 模型
To avoid jumping to conclusions, use a simple checklist. I call it the FACT‑R model:
为了避免草率下结论，可以使用一个简单的检查清单。我称之为 FACT‑R 模型：
F – Facts: What are the undisputed details of the case? Who is involved? What is at stake?
F – 事实：案例中无可争辩的细节有哪些？牵涉到谁？利害关系是什么？
A – Aims and Values: What is each character trying to achieve? Which values (honesty, loyalty, fairness, etc.) are in conflict?
A – 目标与价值观：每个角色试图达成什么目标？哪些价值观（诚实、忠诚、公平等）相互冲突？
C – Concepts: Which philosophical ideas are hiding in the story? Look for duty, rights, consequences, knowledge, belief, or existence.
C – 概念：故事中隐藏着哪些哲学观念？寻找义务、权利、后果、知识、信念或存在等概念。
T – Theories: Can you link the case to a philosophical theory? For example, utilitarianism (maximising happiness) or Kantian ethics (following universal rules).
T – 理论：你能将这个案例与某个哲学理论联系起来吗？例如，功利主义（追求最大多数人的最大幸福）或康德伦理学（遵循普遍法则）。
R – Reasoned Conclusion: What is your overall judgment? Always finish with ‘I believe… because…’ and show you have considered the strongest objection.
R – 理性的结论：你的总体判断是什么？始终以“我认为……因为……”收尾，并表明你已经考虑了最有力的反对意见。
Practice this model with the cases that follow. You do not have to write out every step in a test, but thinking in this order will make your answers deeper and more structured.
用下面的案例来练习这个模型。在考试中你不需要把每个步骤都写出来，但按这个顺序思考会使你的回答更深入、更有条理。
3. Case Study 1: The Stolen Medicine | 案例一：被偷的药
A woman is dying from a rare disease. There is only one medicine that can save her, invented by a local pharmacist. The pharmacist charges £2000 for a single dose, which is ten times the cost of making it. The woman’s husband, Heinz, can only raise £1000. He begs the pharmacist to sell it cheaper or let him pay later, but the pharmacist refuses. Desperate, Heinz breaks into the pharmacy at night and steals the medicine. Should he have done that?
一位女士因患上罕见疾病而濒临死亡。只有一种药能救她，这药是当地一位药剂师发明的。药剂师对一剂药收费 2000 英镑，这是制药成本的十倍。女士的丈夫海因茨只凑到了 1000 英镑。他恳求药剂师便宜点卖给他，或者允许他延期付款，但药剂师拒绝了。绝望之下，海因茨在夜里闯入药房，偷走了药。他应该这样做吗？
One view is that stealing is always wrong because if everyone stole when they felt desperate, trust in property would collapse. This is a Kantian-style argument: moral rules must apply to everyone equally.
一种观点认为，偷窃永远是错的，因为如果每个人在感到绝望时都去偷窃，人们对财产的信任就会崩溃。这是一种康德式的论证：道德规则必须平等地适用于每一个人。
Another view says that saving a life creates more happiness than obeying the rule against theft. From a utilitarian standpoint, the good consequence (a life saved) outweighs the bad consequence (the pharmacist loses profit). So Heinz’s act might be justified.
另一种观点认为，挽救生命比遵守禁止偷窃的规则能创造更多幸福。从功利主义的角度看，好的结果（生命被挽救）压倒了坏的结果（药剂师损失了利润）。因此，海因茨的行为可能是正当的。
Which side do you find more convincing? Notice that this case forces us to choose between two values: respect for property versus the duty to protect life.
你觉得哪一方更有说服力？请注意，这个案例迫使我们必须在两种价值之间做出选择：尊重财产权，还是保护生命的义务。
| Kantian (Absolute rule) | Utilitarian (Consequences) |
| Stealing is always wrong. | Stealing is acceptable if it produces more good than harm. |
| 康德主义（绝对规则） | 功利主义（后果论） |
| 偷窃永远是错的。 | 如果能带来更多好的结果，偷窃就是可以接受的。 |
4. Case Study 2: The Trolley Problem | 案例二：电车难题
Imagine a runaway trolley is speeding down a track towards five workers who cannot escape. You are standing next to a lever. If you pull the lever, the trolley will switch to a side track where only one worker is standing. Is it morally right to pull the lever, killing one person to save five?
想象一辆失控的电车正沿着轨道冲向五名无法逃脱的工人。你站在一个控制杆旁边。如果你拉动控制杆，电车就会转到侧线，那里只站着一名工人。拉动控制杆，牺牲一人而拯救五人，这在道德上是正确的吗？
Most people say yes, because saving five lives is better than saving one. But why does this feel different from pushing a large stranger off a bridge to stop the same trolley? Both actions sacrifice one for five. The case helps you explore the difference between doing harm and allowing harm to happen.
大多数人会说“是的”，因为拯救五条生命比拯救一条生命更好。但为什么这感觉与把一个陌生人从桥上推下去阻止同一辆电车不一样呢？两种行为都是牺牲一人救五人。这个案例帮助你探讨“主动造成伤害”与“允许伤害发生”之间的区别。
A philosopher might use the Doctrine of Double Effect: it is permissible to bring about a bad side-effect (one worker dying) if your intention is to save five, but not permissible to directly intend harm. In the lever case, your intention is to save five, and the one death is a foreseen but unintended side-effect. In the push case, you are directly using the stranger as a means to save others, which many theories forbid.
哲学家可能会运用“双重效应原则”：如果你的意图是拯救五人，并且带来的坏副作用（一名工人死亡）只是可预见但并非意图的结果，那么这就是允许的；但直接意图造成伤害则不被允许。在拉杆案例中，你的意图是救五个人，一个人的死亡是可预见但非意图的副作用。而在推人案例中，你直接利用陌生人来拯救他人，很多理论都禁止这样做。
When you analyse this case, identify the intention behind the action. Is there a moral difference between pulling a lever and pushing a person? Your answer will reveal whether you think intentions matter more than outcomes.
当你分析这个案例时，要找出行为背后的意图。拉拉杆和推人之间是否存在道德上的区别？你的回答将揭示你是否认为意图比结果更重要。
5. Case Study 3: The Friend’s Secret | 案例三：朋友的秘密
Your best friend tells you in confidence that she has started shoplifting small items from a local store, just for the thrill of it. She makes you promise not to tell anyone. The shop owner is a kind person struggling to keep the business open. Later, your mother asks you directly whether your friend has ever done anything dishonest. You are torn between loyalty to your friend and honesty towards your mother, as well as concern for the shop owner. What should you say?
你最要好的朋友私下告诉你，她开始在本地一家商店里小偷小摸，纯粹是为了追求刺激。她让你保证不告诉任何人。店主是个善良的人，正在努力维持生意。后来，你的妈妈直接问你，你的朋友是否做过不诚实的事情。你在忠于朋友、对妈妈诚实以及对店主的关心之间左右为难。你该说什么？
One approach is to rank the values in conflict. Loyalty is important, but so is honesty. Would lying to your mother protect your friend from harm, or would it enable her bad behaviour? Could there be a third option, such as telling your mother you cannot answer that question without breaking a confidence?
一种方法是给相互冲突的价值观排序。忠诚很重要，但诚实同样重要。对妈妈撒谎，是在保护朋友免受伤害，还是在纵容她的不良行为？是否有第三种选择，比如告诉妈妈，不泄露秘密就无法回答这个问题？
Philosophers who follow virtue ethics would ask: ‘What would a truly honest and loyal person do?’ A virtuous person would try to find a way to honour all obligations, perhaps by encouraging the friend to confess and make amends, rather than simply concealing or revealing the truth.
遵循德性伦理学的哲学家会问：“一个真正诚实且忠诚的人会怎么做？”一个有德性的人会设法找到履行所有义务的方式，也许会鼓励朋友坦白并弥补过错，而不是简单地隐瞒或揭露真相。
When writing your analysis, always mention the virtues (honesty, loyalty, compassion) and the vices (deceit, betrayal, indifference) that are being tested. Show that you understand the tug-of-war between personal relationships and wider moral duties.
在撰写分析时，一定要提到正在经受考验的德性（诚实、忠诚、同情）和恶习（欺骗、背叛、冷漠）。要表现出你理解个人关系与更广泛的道德义务之间的拉锯战。
6. Case Study 4: The Unread Textbook | 案例四：没读过的课本
You have a big philosophy test tomorrow. Your teacher has set reading from a textbook, but you decided to watch videos instead because you find them easier. Unexpectedly, the test is cancelled, and the teacher says that everyone will receive a high grade based on their effort so far. Your classmates assume you read the textbook, and you stay silent. Have you been dishonest?
你明天有一场哲学大考。老师布置了课本阅读，但你决定改看视频，因为你觉得看视频更轻松。出乎意料的是，考试被取消了，老师说会根据大家之前的表现给出高分。同学们都以为你读了课本，而你保持沉默。你这样做不诚实吗？
At first glance, no harm seems to have been done, because no one was disadvantaged and you did not lie. However, if you knowingly allowed a false belief to continue, some philosophers say you have been deceptive by omission. Honesty is not just about avoiding lies; it also involves not misleading others.
乍一看，似乎没有造成任何伤害，因为没有人吃亏，你也没有说谎。然而，如果你故意让一个错误认知持续下去，一些哲学家会说，你构成了“不作为的欺骗”。诚实并不仅仅是避免说谎，它还涉及不误导他人。
On the other hand, you might argue that your study method is your own business, and as long as you understand the material, the teacher’s assumption is not harmful. But can you truly claim to have made as much effort as the others? The case challenges you to think about fairness and intellectual honesty.
另一方面，你可能会说，你的学习方法是自己的事情，只要你理解了内容，老师的推测就并无害处。但你真能声称自己付出了和别人一样多的努力吗？这个案例挑战你思考公平与学术诚信的问题。
Use the FACT‑R model: Facts (test cancelled, high grade given), Aims (you want a good grade with minimal effort, teacher wants to reward effort), Concepts (honesty, fairness, effort), Theories (virtue ethics would ask what a person of integrity would do), and a Reasoned conclusion. A person of integrity would probably correct the false impression quietly.
运用 FACT‑R 模型：事实（考试取消，给了高分），目标（你想以最少努力获得好成绩，老师想奖励努力），概念（诚实、公平、努力），理论（德性伦理学追问一个有操守的人会怎么做），以及理性结论。一个有操守的人大概会悄悄纠正这个误解。
7. Case Study 5: Brain in a Vat | 案例五：缸中之脑
Imagine that while you were asleep, a super-scientist removed your brain and placed it in a vat of nutrients. Your brain is now connected to a computer that feeds you perfect simulations of reality. Everything you experience — this article, your classroom, your friends — is a digital illusion. How do you know that you are not a brain in a vat right now?
想象一下，在你睡觉时，一位超级科学家取出了你的大脑，将它放进一个充满营养液的缸中。你的大脑现在连接到一台计算机，它向你输入对现实的完美模拟。你所体验到的一切——这篇文章、你的教室、你的朋友——都是数字幻象。你怎么知道自己现在不是缸中之脑？
This famous thought experiment from epistemology (the theory of knowledge) asks whether we can ever be 100% sure that the world outside our minds is real. If all our evidence comes through our senses, and those senses can be fooled, then what can we know for certain?
这个著名的思想实验来自认识论（知识论），它追问我们能否百分百确定心灵之外的世界是真实的。如果我们所有的证据都来自感官，而感官又可以被欺骗，那我们能确切知道什么？
Philosopher René Descartes argued that even if an evil demon was deceiving him, at least he could be sure he existed because he was thinking: ‘I think, therefore I am.’ But beyond that, certainty is very hard to reach.
哲学家勒内·笛卡尔论证说，即使有一个邪恶的恶魔在欺骗他，至少他可以确定自己存在，因为他在思考：“我思故我在。”但除此之外，确定性极难达到。
When analysing this case, focus on the concept of knowledge. Most CCEA tasks will ask: ‘What is the difference between belief and knowledge?’ A belief can be true or false, but knowledge is usually defined as justified true belief. Yet the brain-in-a-vat scenario seems to show that all our beliefs might be false, so do we really ‘know’ anything? This is a brilliant way to practise evaluating sceptical arguments.
分析这个案例时，要聚焦于知识的概念。大多数 CCEA 题目会问：“信念和知识之间有什么区别？”信念可真可假，但知识通常被定义为“被证成的真信念”。然而，缸中之脑情境似乎表明，我们的所有信念都可能为假，那么我们真的“知道”任何东西吗？这是练习评价怀疑论论证的绝佳方式。
8. Case Study 6: The Lifeboat Ethics | 案例六：救生艇伦理
A small lifeboat is dangerously overloaded with ten people. A storm is coming, and unless two people are thrown overboard, the boat will sink and everyone will drown. There is no time to draw lots or wait for rescue. The strongest passenger argues that the weakest two should be thrown out to save the eight. Is it ever right to sacrifice an innocent minority for the majority?
一艘小救生艇上挤了十个人，严重超载。暴风雨即将来临，除非将两个人扔下船去，否则船会沉没，所有人都会淹死。没有时间抽签或等待救援。最强壮的乘客主张，应该把最弱的两个人扔下去，以拯救其余八人。为了多数人而牺牲无辜的少数，这样做在道义上是否正确？
Utilitarians would calculate: losing two lives is less terrible than losing ten. But opponents say that actively throwing people to their death treats them as mere means, which is forbidden by Kantian ethics. They would insist that the only moral option is to stay together and hope for a miracle, even if it leads to the deaths of all.
功利主义者会算计：失去两条生命不如失去十条生命那么糟糕。但反对者会说，主动把人丢下水等死是将他们纯粹当作手段，这是康德伦理学所禁止的。他们会坚持，唯一道德的选择是待在一起并期待奇迹，即使会导致所有人死亡。
This case also touches on justice: which two should be chosen? If we pick the weakest, we are valuing physical strength above human dignity. Some might argue for a fairer procedure, like volunteering, but what if nobody volunteers? Your job is to recognise that principles (never kill innocent people) can clash with the instinct to maximise lives saved.
这个案例还触及了正义问题：应该选择哪两个人？如果我们挑选最弱者，那就把体力置于人类尊严之上了。有些人可能主张更公平的程序，比如自愿，但如果没有人自愿呢？你的任务是认识到，原则（绝不杀害无辜者）可能与最大化拯救生命的本能发生冲突。
9. Case Study 7: The Ring of Gyges | 案例七：盖吉斯之戒
In Plato’s Republic, a shepherd finds a ring that makes him invisible. Using this power, he seduces the queen, kills the king, and seizes the throne. The question posed is: if you had a ring of invisibility, would you still behave morally? If you could get away with anything, would you continue to tell the truth, keep promises, and help others?
在柏拉图的《理想国》中，一个牧羊人发现了一枚能让他隐身的戒指。利用这种能力，他勾引了王后，杀死了国王，并夺取了王位。提出的问题是：如果你有一枚能隐身的戒指，你还会按道德行事吗？如果你做任何事都可以逃脱惩罚，你还会说真话、守承诺、帮助他人吗？
Glaucon, who tells the story, claims that people are just only because they fear punishment. Remove the fear, and even the most honest person would behave like the shepherd. Socrates disagrees: he thinks a just soul is healthier and happier in itself, even without external rewards.
讲述这个故事的格劳孔声称，人们之所以公正，仅仅是因为他们害怕惩罚。消除恐惧，即使最诚实的人也会像牧羊人那样行事。苏格拉底不同意：他认为公正的灵魂本身就是更健康、更幸福的，即使没有外在的奖赏。
Use this case to discuss the purpose of morality. Is morality simply a social contract we follow to avoid trouble, or is it something good in itself? Year 8 pupils often find this case exciting because it connects to conversations about peer pressure and doing the right thing when no one is watching.
利用这个案例来讨论道德的目的。道德仅仅是我们为了避免麻烦而遵守的社会契约吗，还是它本身就有好的价值？Year 8 的学生常常觉得这个案例很刺激，因为它与有关同伴压力以及“在无人监督时仍需做正确的事情”的讨论联系了起来。
10. Case Study 8: Animal Testing for Medicine | 案例八：用动物做医学实验
A research laboratory is testing a new vaccine that could save thousands of human lives. The vaccine must be tested on 50 mice, which will suffer and then be humanely killed. Without animal testing, the vaccine cannot be released. Is it right to cause animal suffering for human benefit?
一家研究实验室正在测试一种能挽救成千上万人生命的新疫苗。疫苗必须在 50 只老鼠身上进行测试，它们会受苦，随后被人道地处死。如果不进行动物实验，疫苗就无法推出。为了人类的利益而造成动物的痛苦，这是正确的吗？
Peter Singer, a contemporary utilitarian, argues that we must give equal consideration to the interests of all beings that can suffer. If the mouse’s suffering is real, we cannot simply ignore it. However, other utilitarians point out that the total happiness gained (thousands of lives) might outweigh the mouse suffering.
当代功利主义者彼得·辛格认为，我们必须对一切能够感受痛苦的生命的利益给予平等考虑。如果老鼠的痛苦是真实的，我们不能简单地忽视它。然而，其他功利主义者指出，获得的总体幸福（成千上万条生命）可能压倒了老鼠的痛苦。
Rights-based philosophers would say that animals have a right not to be used as mere tools. If a human could not be tested on without consent, why should a mouse? This approach sees animal testing as a violation of rights, regardless of the benefits.
基于权利的哲学家会声称，动物有权利不被纯粹当作工具使用。如果未经同意就不能在人身上做实验，为什么老鼠可以？这种观点认为，动物实验是对权利的侵犯，不论其带来的好处有多少。
When you write about this case, distinguish between the utilitarian calculation and the rights-based objection. A strong answer will also mention possible alternatives, such as computer modelling, that could reduce animal suffering.
当你撰写关于这个案例的文章时，要区分功利主义的盘算和基于权利的反对意见。一份有力的回答还会提及可能的替代方案，比如计算机模拟，这可以减少动物的痛苦。
11. Writing Like a Philosopher: Structuring Your Response | 像哲学家一样写作：构建你的回答
Now that you have practised analysing cases, it is time to structure that thinking into a clear paragraph or short essay. Follow this three-part structure: 1) Explain the issue – briefly state the dilemma and identify the conflicting values. 2) Argue both sides – present the strongest argument for view A, then the strongest argument for view B. Use phrases like ‘Some people would argue that…’ and ‘However, others believe…’ 3) Reach a reasoned conclusion – state your view and back it up with a reason. Always mention the weakest point of your own position and explain why you still hold it.
既然你已经练习了分析案例，现在就该把这种思维组织成一个清晰的段落或短文。遵循这个三段式结构：1) 解释问题——简要陈述两难困境，指出相互冲突的价值观。2) 论证双方——先呈现支持观点 A 的最强论点，再呈现支持观点 B 的最强论点。使用“有人会论证说……”以及“然而，另一些人认为……”这样的表述。3) 得出理性的结论——陈述你的观点并用理由支持它。永远要提及你自己立场中最薄弱的一点，并解释你为什么仍然坚持它。
A model sentence to start is: ‘This case presents a conflict between [Value 1] and [Value 2]. While some might emphasise [Value 1] because…, I believe [Value 2] is more important, provided we also consider…’ Never forget to link back to the details of the case.
一个模范开头句是：“这个案例呈现了 [价值观 1] 和 [价值观 2] 之间的冲突。虽然有人可能因为……而强调 [价值观 1]，但我认为 [价值观 2] 更为重要，前提是我们也要考虑到……”永远不要忘记回扣案例的细节。
Philosophy is about process, not just conclusions. The CCEA examiner wants to see you thinking aloud on the page, exploring consequences and testing principles. With the FACT‑R model and these nine cases, you have a rich toolkit for exam success.
哲学关乎过程，而不仅仅是结论。CCEA 考官希望看到你在纸上出声想，探究后果并检验原则。有了 FACT‑R 模型和这九个案例，你就拥有了考试成功的丰富工具包。
12. Reflective Wrap-Up: Becoming a Better Thinker | 反思总结：成为更好的思考者
Each case study is a gym for your mind. The more you practise spotting hidden values, defining key concepts, and linking theories to everyday life, the stronger your philosophical muscles become. Keep a case-study journal where you collect dilemmas from the news, from films, or from conversations with friends, and apply the FACT‑R model for fun. That habit will transform you from a student who memorises answers into someone who genuinely thinks for themselves.
每一次案例分析都是你头脑的健身房。你越是练习发现隐藏的价值观、定义关键概念并把理论与日常生活联系起来，你的哲学肌肉就会越强壮。准备一本案例分析日记，把新闻、电影或与朋友的对话中遇到的两难困境收集起来，并出于乐趣运用 FACT‑R 模型进行分析。这个习惯会将你从一个背诵答案的学生，转变成一个真正独立思考的人。
Remember, in philosophy, the journey is the destination. There will always be new puzzles, and that is what makes the subject endlessly fascinating.
请记住，在哲学中，过程就是目的地。总会有新的谜题出现，而这正是这门学科无穷魅力的所在。
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