📚 Case Study Analysis in Philosophy | 哲学案例分析实战演练
In Year 9 WJEC Philosophy, you will often be asked to analyse case studies or thought experiments. This skill requires you to carefully examine a scenario, identify the philosophical issues involved, and construct a reasoned argument. This revision guide will walk you through key examples and methods to help you master case study analysis.
在Year 9 WJEC哲学课程中，你会经常被要求分析案例研究或思想实验。这项技能要求你仔细审查场景，识别其中涉及的哲学问题，并构建有理有据的论证。这份复习指南将带你浏览关键示例和方法，帮助你掌握案例分析。
1. What is a Case Study in Philosophy? | 什么是哲学案例研究？
A philosophical case study is a detailed examination of a specific situation, real or imagined, which is used to explore and test philosophical theories and concepts. Unlike science experiments, these cases are often thought experiments that challenge our intuitions.
哲学案例研究是对某一特定情境（无论真实或虚构）的详细审视，用于探索和检验哲学理论与概念。与科学实验不同，这些案例通常是挑战我们直觉的思想实验。
The goal is not to find the ‘right’ answer but to engage in critical thinking, evaluate different perspectives, and build a coherent argument. In WJEC exams, you might be given a short scenario and asked to discuss it using philosophical ideas.
目的不是找到“正确”答案，而是进行批判性思考，评估不同观点，并构建一个连贯的论证。在WJEC考试中，你可能会遇到一个简短的场景，并被要求运用哲学思想进行讨论。
2. The Trolley Problem: Ethics in Action | 电车难题：行动中的伦理学
The classic trolley problem presents a runaway trolley heading towards five people tied to the track. You can pull a lever to switch the trolley onto another track, but there is one person tied there. Do you pull the lever? This case explores the tension between utilitarianism (maximising overall good) and deontological ethics (following moral rules regardless of outcomes).
经典的电车难题描述的是一辆失控的电车冲向绑在轨道上的五个人。你可以拉动拉杆将电车转到另一条轨道，但那条轨道上绑着一个人。你会拉动拉杆吗？这个案例探讨了功利主义（最大化总体利益）与义务论（无论结果如何都遵循道德规则）之间的张力。
When analysing this case, you should identify the ethical theories: utilitarians would pull the lever to save five lives at the cost of one, while deontologists might argue that actively causing someone’s death is morally wrong, even if it saves more lives. Consider also the concept of double effect.
在分析这个案例时，你应该识别伦理理论：功利主义者会拉动拉杆，以牺牲一人为代价拯救五人；而义务论者可能认为，主动导致某人死亡在道德上是错误的，即使能拯救更多生命。同时考虑双重效果的概念。
You can strengthen your argument by discussing real-world applications, such as autonomous vehicle ethics or medical triage. Always link back to the core philosophical principles.
你可以通过讨论现实世界中的应用来加强论证，例如自动驾驶汽车伦理或医疗分级。始终要回到核心的哲学原理。
3. Gettier Cases: Is Justified True Belief Enough? | 盖梯尔案例：确证的真信念就够了吗？
For a long time, knowledge was defined as justified true belief (JTB). Edmund Gettier challenged this with cases where someone has a justified true belief but, intuitively, does not know. For instance, Smith believes ‘the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket’ based on strong evidence, but he himself gets the job and unknowingly has ten coins. The belief is true and justified, yet it is not knowledge.
长期以来，知识被定义为确证的真信念（JTB）。埃德蒙·盖梯尔通过一些案例挑战了这一定义：在这些案例中，某人拥有确证的真信念，但直觉上并没有知识。例如，史密斯基于有力证据相信“得到这份工作的人口袋里有十枚硬币”，但他自己得到了工作，并且碰巧口袋里也有十枚硬币。这个信念是真且确证的，但它并不是知识。
In your analysis, explain why the JTB definition fails in the case. You could discuss the role of luck and the need for a connection between justification and truth. Some philosophers propose adding a ‘no false lemmas’ condition or reliability. Show how this case pushes us to refine our understanding of knowledge.
在分析中，要解释为什么JTB定义在此案例中失效。你可以讨论运气的作用以及确证与真理之间联系的必要性。一些哲学家建议增加“无假前提”条件或可靠性要求。展示这个案例如何促使我们完善对知识的理解。
4. The Ship of Theseus: The Problem of Identity | 忒修斯之船：同一性问题
The Ship of Theseus is a thought experiment about identity over time. If all the planks of a ship are gradually replaced, is it still the same ship? What if the old planks are reassembled into a ship? This case is used to explore personal identity and the persistence of objects.
忒修斯之船是一个关于历时同一性的思想实验。如果一艘船的所有木板被逐渐替换，它还是同一艘船吗？如果旧木板被重新组装成一艘船呢？这个案例用来探讨个人同一性和事物的持续存在。
When analysing, connect the case to theories of personal identity, such as psychological continuity (the mind, memories) versus bodily continuity (physical body). You can also discuss how this relates to problems like teleportation or massive bodily change in science fiction. Highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each theory.
分析时，要将案例与个人同一性理论联系起来，例如心理连续性（心智、记忆）与身体连续性（肉体）。你还可以讨论这与科幻中远距传送或身体巨变等问题的关联。突出每种理论的优缺点。
5. Pascal’s Wager: Belief as a Bet | 帕斯卡的赌注：信仰作为赌注
Pascal’s Wager is a pragmatic argument for believing in God. It suggests that if you believe in God and God exists, you gain infinite reward (heaven); if you do not believe and God exists, you face infinite loss (hell). If God does not exist, belief or unbelief leads to finite gains or losses. Therefore, it is rational to believe.
帕斯卡的赌注是一个信仰上帝的实用主义论证。它认为：如果你信仰上帝且上帝存在，你将获得无限回报（天堂）；如果你不信仰而上帝存在，你将面临无限损失（地狱）。如果上帝不存在，信或不信都只带来有限的得失。因此，信仰是理性的选择。
Your analysis should examine objections: the ‘many gods’ objection (which god?), the impossibility of forcing belief, and the ethical concern of believing out of self-interest. Also, consider whether the argument assumes a particular concept of God. Present both sides fairly.
你的分析应该审视反对意见：“多神反对”（信哪个神？），强求信仰的不可能性，以及出于自利而信仰的伦理关切。还要考虑这一论证是否预设了特定的上帝观念。公平地展示双方立场。
6. Sisyphus and the Meaning of Life | 西西弗斯与生命的意义
In Greek myth, Sisyphus is condemned to roll a boulder up a hill for eternity, only for it to roll back down each time. Albert Camus uses this as a metaphor for the absurdity of life. The case challenges us to consider whether life can have meaning despite its repetitive and seemingly pointless nature.
在希腊神话中，西西弗斯被判永远将一块巨石推上山，而每次巨石又会滚落。阿尔贝·加缪以此作为人生荒诞性的比喻。这个案例挑战我们去思考：尽管生活充满重复且看似无意义，它是否仍能具有意义。
Analyse the existentialist response: meaning is not found but created through our choices and revolt. Contrast with religious or essentialist views that meaning is given. You can also bring in the concept of ‘authenticity’. Consider how the case applies to contemporary life, such as repetitive work.
分析存在主义的回应：意义不是被发现的，而是通过我们的选择和反抗创造的。将其与宗教或本质主义观点进行对比，后者认为意义是赋予的。你还可以引入“本真性”的概念。思考这个案例如何适用于当代生活，比如重复性工作。
7. How to Structure Your Case Study Analysis | 如何构建你的案例分析
A strong analysis follows a clear structure. A common method is PEEL: Point, Evidence, Explanation, Link. First, make your point (e.g., ‘a utilitarian would pull the lever’). Then provide evidence from the case or a theory. Explain how the evidence supports your point. Finally, link back to the question or to a broader philosophical issue.
一个好的分析会遵循清晰的结构。一种常见的方法是PEEL：观点、证据、解释、联系。首先，提出你的观点（例如，“功利主义者会拉动拉杆”）。然后提供来自案例或理论的证据。解释证据如何支持你的观点。最后，回扣问题或更广泛的哲学议题。
Another useful structure is the argument-counterargument-conclusion model. Present an argument, consider the strongest objection, and then respond before concluding. This shows balanced reasoning and secures higher marks in WJEC assessments.
另一个有用的结构是“论证-反论证-结论”模式。提出一个论证，考虑最强有力的反对意见，然后做出回应再得出结论。这表明了平衡的推理，能在WJEC评估中获得更高分数。
8. Common Logical Fallacies to Avoid | 需要避免的常见逻辑谬误
When building your argument, be careful to avoid fallacies. The ad hominem fallacy attacks the person instead of the argument. The straw man misrepresents an opponent’s position. Begging the question assumes what you are trying to prove. Slippery slope argues without proper justification that one step will lead to extreme outcomes.
在构建论证时，要小心避免谬误。人身攻击谬误是攻击人而非论点。稻草人谬误是歪曲对方的立场。窃取论点（循环论证）是假定你试图证明的东西。滑坡谬误是在没有正当理由的情况下论证一步会导致极端后果。
Recognising fallacies helps you criticise others’ arguments and strengthen your own. In a case study, always check if your reasoning relies on any of these errors. Use precise language and evidence.
识别谬误有助于你批评他人的论证并加强自己的论证。在案例分析中，总是检查你的推理是否依赖于这些错误。使用精确的语言和证据。
9. Applying Ethical Theories to Cases | 将伦理理论应用于案例
Many WJEC case studies involve ethical dilemmas. You should be comfortable applying utilitarianism (Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill), which focuses on the consequences and the greatest happiness principle. Deontology (Immanuel Kant) emphasizes duty and the categorical imperative: act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
许多WJEC案例研究涉及伦理困境。你应该熟练应用功利主义（杰里米·边沁、约翰·斯图亚特·穆勒），它关注后果和最大幸福原则。义务论（伊曼努尔·康德）强调责任和定言命令：只依据你同时愿意它成为普遍法则的准则而行动。
Virtue ethics (Aristotle) looks at the character of the moral agent and the virtues they should cultivate, such as courage, honesty, and compassion. When analysing a case, apply each theory systematically and evaluate their strengths and limitations in that context.
美德伦理学（亚里士多德）关注道德主体的品格和他们应培养的美德，如勇气、诚实和同情。在分析案例时，系统地应用每种理论，并评估它们在该情境中的优点和局限。
10. Practice Case: The Ring of Gyges | 实践案例：盖吉斯之戒
In Plato’s Republic, the Ring of Gyges makes its wearer invisible. The question is: would a person be just if they could act unjustly without fear of punishment? This case explores the nature of justice and whether people are moral only out of fear of consequences. Apply ethical theories and discuss whether morality is intrinsic or extrinsic.
在柏拉图的《理想国》中，盖吉斯之戒能让佩戴者隐身。问题是：如果一个人能不受惩罚地行不义之事，他还会保持正义吗？这个案例探讨了正义的本质以及人是否仅因惧怕后果而道德。应用伦理理论，讨论道德是内在的还是外在的。
For your practice, write a paragraph using the PEEL structure, considering how a virtue ethicist, a utilitarian, and a deontologist would answer. What does the case reveal about human nature? This exercise will prepare you for similar unseen cases in the exam.
作为练习，运用PEEL结构写一个段落，考虑美德伦理学家、功利主义者和义务论者会如何回答。这个案例揭示了人性的什么？这项练习将为你在考试中遇到类似的新案例做好准备。
11. Tips for Exam Success | 考试成功提示
Read the case
Published by TutorHao | Year 9 哲学 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