📚 Case Study Practical Exercises for Year 10 Cambridge Philosophy | Year 10 剑桥哲学：案例分析实战演练
Philosophy is not just about learning theories; it is about applying them to tricky, thought-provoking scenarios. For Year 10 Cambridge Philosophy, mastering case study analysis is your best tool for turning abstract concepts into clear, exam-ready arguments. This guide will walk you through a structured method, supply you with six classic philosophical puzzles, and show you exactly how to write high-scoring responses.
哲学不只是学习理论，更是将理论运用到棘手而发人深省的情境中。对于 Year 10 剑桥哲学，掌握案例分析是你将抽象概念转化为清晰、适合考试的论证的最佳工具。本指南将带你走过一套结构化的方法，提供六个经典哲学谜题，并向你展示如何写出高分答案。
1. What is a Case Study in Philosophy? | 什么是哲学案例研究？
A philosophical case study is a detailed exploration of a scenario—real or imagined—that forces us to question fundamental ideas like knowledge, ethics, identity, or free will. It is not a simple story; it is a mental laboratory where we test philosophical theories and expose hidden assumptions.
哲学案例研究是对一个真实或虚构情境的详细探索，它迫使我们质疑诸如知识、伦理、身份或自由意志等基本观念。它不是一个简单的故事；它是一个思想实验室，我们在其中检验哲学理论并揭示隐藏的假设。
In the Cambridge IGCSE Philosophy exam, you will be presented with a short case study and asked to “discuss,” “evaluate,” or “to what extent do you agree.” The examiners want to see that you can move beyond describing the case and into analysing it with philosophical depth.
在剑桥 IGCSE 哲学考试中，你会遇到简短的案例研究，并被要求“讨论”、“评估”或“你在多大程度上同意”。考官希望看到你能够超越对案例的描述，用哲学的深度去分析它。
2. The Step-by-Step Approach to Analysing a Philosophical Case | 哲学案例分析的分步法
Step 1 – Identify the Core Philosophical Issue: Ask yourself what big question the case is really about. Is it the nature of justice? The limits of human knowledge? The definition of a person? State this clearly in your opening sentence.
第一步 – 确定核心哲学问题：问自己案例真正关乎什么大问题。是关于正义的本质？人类知识的极限？还是人的定义？在开头句子里清楚地陈述出来。
Step 2 – Clarify Key Concepts: Define any tricky terms, such as ‘utility,’ ‘a priori,’ or ‘moral responsibility.’ A case study analysis falls apart if the concepts are fuzzy. Use technical vocabulary accurately.
第二步 – 澄清关键概念：定义任何棘手的术语，例如“功利”、“先验”或“道德责任”。如果概念模糊不清，案例分析就站不住脚。准确使用专业词汇。
Step 3 – Map the Arguments: Extract what different philosophers or ethical frameworks would say. For instance, a utilitarian might calculate consequences, while a deontologist would check rules and duties. Present both sides fairly.
第三步 – 绘制论证地图：提取不同哲学家或伦理框架会怎么说的内容。例如，功利主义者可能会计算结果，而义务论者会审查规则和义务。公平地呈现双方观点。
Step 4 – Evaluate with Criteria: Don’t just list arguments; weigh them. Use criteria such as consistency, practicality, or alignment with our moral intuitions. Explain which argument is stronger and why.
第四步 – 用标准进行评估：不要只罗列论证；要权衡它们。使用一致性、实用性或与我们的道德直觉的契合度等标准。解释哪个论证更强以及为什么。
Step 5 – Reach a Nuanced Conclusion: Your final verdict should acknowledge complexity. You might conclude that the utilitarian view works in this case but has dangerous implications in others, showing that the issue resists easy answers.
第五步 – 得出有细微差别的结论：你的最终判断应承认复杂性。你可以得出结论：功利主义观点在此案例中有效，但在其他案例中有危险的含义，表明这个问题不容易有简单的答案。
3. Case Study 1: The Evil Demon (Epistemology) | 案例一：邪恶的恶魔（认识论）
Imagine a powerful, malicious demon whose entire purpose is to deceive you. It makes you believe you are reading this text, touching a table, and even that 2+2=4—when in fact, none of it is true. All your sensory experiences and logical intuitions are illusions. This is Descartes’ radical doubt thought experiment, designed to find something indubitable.
想象一个强大的恶意恶魔，其全部目的就是欺骗你。它让你相信你正在读这段文字、触摸一张桌子，甚至相信 2+2=4——而实际上，这一切都不是真的。你所有的感官经验和逻辑直觉都是幻觉。这就是笛卡尔的激进怀疑思想实验，旨在找到某个不容置疑的东西。
Core philosophical issue: Can we have any certain knowledge? Descartes demolishes sense experience and even mathematics as reliable foundations. He then arrives at ‘I think, therefore I am’ (Cogito ergo sum) as the one truth the demon cannot falsify, because the very act of being deceived proves that he exists as a thinking thing.
核心哲学问题：我们能拥有任何确定的知识吗？笛卡尔摧毁了感官经验甚至数学作为可靠基础的地位。然后他得出了“我思故我在”（Cogito ergo sum），作为恶魔无法伪造的唯一真理，因为被欺骗这一行为本身就证明了他作为一个思考者的存在。
Analysis tip: When evaluating this case in an exam, contrast Descartes’ rationalist answer with empiricist replies. Hume would argue that our belief in an external world is an instinctive ‘animal faith’ that cannot be proven but is necessary for life. Use this case to discuss foundationalism and the distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge.
分析提示：在考试中评估这个案例时，将笛卡尔的理性主义回答与经验主义者的回应进行对比。休谟会认为，我们对外部世界的信念是一种本能的“动物信仰”，无法证明但对生活来说必不可少。用这个案例来讨论基础主义以及先验知识和后验知识的区别。
4. Case Study 2: The Trolley Problem (Ethics) | 案例二：电车难题（伦理学）
A runaway trolley is heading towards five workers who will certainly be killed. You are standing by a lever. If you pull it, the trolley will divert onto a side track where one worker is trapped. Do you pull the lever, sacrificing one to save five? This classic dilemma, introduced by Philippa Foot, pits utilitarian calculation against deontological principles.
一辆失控的电车正冲向五名工人，他们必死无疑。你站在一个拉杆旁。如果你拉动拉杆，电车将转向一条侧轨，那里有一名工人被困。你是否拉动拉杆，牺牲一人来救五人？这个由菲利帕·福特引入的经典困境，将功利主义的计算与义务论的原则对立起来。
Jeremy Bentham’s act utilitarianism would demand pulling the lever: the hedonic calculus aims to maximise pleasure and minimise pain, and five lives saved produce far greater utility than one life lost. However, Immanuel Kant would forbid using the one person merely as a means to an end. For Kant, the categorical imperative requires that we never treat humanity purely as a tool, and pushing someone would violate that absolute rule.
杰里米·边沁的行为功利主义会要求拉动拉杆：快乐计算旨在最大化快乐和最小化痛苦，五条生命获救所产生的功利远大于一条生命的损失。然而，伊曼努尔·康德会禁止仅仅将那个人当作达到目的的手段。对康德来说，定言命令要求我们绝不纯粹把人当成工具，而推人则会违反这一绝对规则。
Evaluation: Many students notice that our intuitions shift if we change the case (the ‘fat man’ variant, where you push a large person off a bridge to stop the trolley). This reveals that factors like physical involvement and intention matter deeply to our moral psychology, suggesting that pure utilitarian calculus does not capture the whole picture of human morality.
评估：许多学生注意到，如果我们改变案例（“胖子”变体，你将一个胖子推下桥来阻止电车），我们的直觉会发生变化。这揭示了身体参与和意图等因素对我们的道德心理非常重要，表明纯粹的功利计算并没有捕捉到人类道德的全貌。
5. Case Study 3: Theseus’ Ship (Metaphysics) | 案例三：忒修斯之船（形而上学）
Theseus’ ship is preserved in a harbour. Over the centuries, every plank and part is gradually replaced as it rots. Eventually, no original material remains. Meanwhile, a collector gathers all the discarded original planks and reassembles them into a second, identical-looking ship. Which one is the true Ship of Theseus? This ancient puzzle probes the problem of identity over time.
忒修斯的船被保存在一个港口。几个世纪中，随着船体腐烂，每块木板和部件都被逐渐更换。最终，再也没有原始的物料了。与此同时，一位收藏家收集了所有被丢弃的原始木板，并将其重新组装成一艘外观一模一样的船。哪一艘才是真正的忒修斯之船？这个古老的谜题探究的是跨越时间的同一性问题。
Philosophers offer competing criteria. Thomas Hobbes proposed the materialist view that identity follows physical continuity, meaning the reassembled ship from original planks would be the true one. In contrast, a psychological or functional account would say the continuously maintained ship, now with new planks, is the genuine article because it has an unbroken history and role.
哲学家们提出了相互竞争的标准。托马斯·霍布斯提出了唯物主义观点，认为同一性遵循物理连续性，这意味着用原始木板重新组装的船才是真正的船。相反，心理或功能上的解释会说，持续保养的、现在装有新木板的船才是真品，因为它有着不间断的历史和功能。
Connections to Year 10 syllabus: Relate this to problems of personal identity. If human body cells are constantly replaced, what makes you the same person as you were at age five? Locke would point to memory and consciousness, while others would look to the continuity of the body. This case is perfect for comparing metaphysical criteria like physical, psychological, and narrative identity.
与 Year 10 课程的联系：将此与人格同一性问题联系起来。如果人体细胞不断被替换，是什么让你和五岁时的你是同一个人？洛克会指向记忆和意识，而其他人会看向身体的连续性。这个案例非常适合比较物理、心理和叙事同一性等形而上学标准。
6. Case Study 4: Russell’s Chicken (Philosophy of Science) | 案例四：罗素的火鸡（科学哲学）
Bertrand Russell told the story of a turkey who observes that every morning, the farmer arrives with food. After many data points, the turkey uses induction to conclude, “The farmer will feed me every day.” Then, on Christmas Eve, the farmer arrives with an axe. The turkey’s well-supported inductive belief is fatally wrong. Russell used this to illustrate the problem of induction, first raised by David Hume.
伯特兰·罗素讲过一个火鸡的故事，它观察到每天早上农夫都会带着食物出现。经过许多数据点后，火鸡运用归纳法得出结论：“农夫每天都会喂我。”然后，在平安夜，农夫带着斧头来了。火鸡那个得到充分支持的归纳信念是致命性错误的。罗素用这个故事来说明最初由大卫·休谟提出的归纳问题。
Hume argued that we cannot rationally justify induction without circular reasoning. We believe the sun will rise tomorrow because it always has, but that assumes that the future will resemble the past, which is itself an inductive claim. This sceptical challenge undermines the foundations of science, which relies on generalising from observed instances.
休谟认为，如果不陷入循环推理，我们就无法理性地证明归纳法的合理性。我们相信太阳明天会升起，因为它一直如此，但这本身就假设了未来会与过去相似，而这本身就是一个归纳主张。这个怀疑论挑战动摇了科学的基础，因为科学依赖于从观察到的实例中进行概括。
How to analyse: Avoid simply reciting the story. Instead, bring in Karl Popper’s response. Popper claimed that science does not proceed by induction but by falsification: theories are tested by risky predictions, and we can never confirm them, only fail to falsify them. Evaluating whether falsification truly solves the problem is a high-quality move in an essay.
如何分析：避免只是复述故事。相反，引入卡尔·波普尔的回应。波普尔声称，科学不是通过归纳法前进的，而是通过证伪法：理论通过冒险的预测来检验，我们永远无法证实它们，只能未能证伪它们。评估证伪法是否真正解决了问题，是文章中的一个高级动作。
7. Case Study 5: The Prisoner’s Dilemma (Political Philosophy) | 案例五：囚徒困境（政治哲学）
Two prisoners are being interrogated separately. If both stay silent, they receive a light sentence. If one betrays the other while the other stays silent, the betrayer goes free and the silent one gets a heavy sentence. If both betray, both get a medium sentence. Rationally, each prisoner thinks: “If my partner stays silent, I should betray to go free; if my partner betrays, I should betray to avoid the worst outcome.” Betrayal dominates. Thus, both end up betraying, and both get a worse outcome than if they had cooperated.
两名囚犯被分开审讯。如果两人都保持沉默，他们会被轻判。如果一人背叛而另一人沉默，背叛者释放，沉默者获重刑。如果两人都背叛，两人都获中等刑罚。理性地，每个囚犯都想：“如果同伙沉默，我应该背叛以获自由；如果同伙背叛，我也应该背叛以避免最坏结果。”背叛是占优策略。于是，两人最终都背叛，获得了比他们合作时更糟的结果。
This puzzle is not just about crime; it is a model for understanding why cooperation can be so hard even when it is mutually beneficial. Thomas Hobbes used similar reasoning to argue for a social contract: without a sovereign to enforce rules, rational individuals fall into a ‘war of all against all.’
这个难题不仅仅是关于犯罪；它是理解为什么即使合作对双方都有利时合作也如此困难的一个模型。托马斯·霍布斯运用类似的推理来论证社会契约：如果没有一个主权者来执行规则，理性的个体就会陷入“所有人对所有人的战争”。
In your analysis, examine solutions like repeated games (tit-for-tat strategy) and the role of trust. Connect it to political philosophy by discussing whether the state is necessary to solve collective action problems, or whether individuals can develop moral incentives to cooperate without coercion.
在你的分析中，考察重复博弈（以牙还牙策略）和信任的作用等解决方案。通过讨论国家是否是解决集体行动问题所必需的，或者个体是否能够在没有强制的情况下产生合作的道德动机，将之与政治哲学联系起来。
8. Case Study 6: The Heinz Dilemma (Applied Ethics) | 案例六：海因茨困境（应用伦理学）
A woman is dying from a rare cancer. A druggist in town has invented a drug that could save her but is selling it at ten times the cost of production. Her husband, Heinz, can only raise half the required money. The druggist refuses to lower the price or allow delayed payment. Desperate, Heinz considers breaking in to steal the drug. Should he do it? Developed by Lawrence Kohlberg, this dilemma is used to examine moral reasoning, not just right or wrong answers.
一名妇女因患罕见癌症而濒临死亡。镇上的一位药剂师发明了一种能救她的药，但却以生产成本的十倍价格出售。她的丈夫海因茨只能筹到所需的一半钱。药剂师拒绝降价或允许延迟付款。绝望中，海因茨考虑破门而入偷药。他应该这样做吗？由劳伦斯·科尔伯格发展的这个困境用于考察道德推理，而不仅仅是对或错的答案。
At the pre-conventional level, a person might say Heinz should not steal because he might be punished, or he should steal because his wife needs him. At the conventional level, reasoning focuses on laws and social order: stealing is against the law, so it is wrong. At the post-conventional level, someone might argue that the right to life outweighs property rights, and a law that protects profiteering at the expense of a life is an unjust law that may be broken.
在前习俗水平，一个人可能会说海因茨不应该偷，因为他可能会受到惩罚；或者他应该偷，因为他的妻子需要他。在习俗水平，推理聚焦于法律和社会秩序：偷盗是违法的，所以是错的。在后习俗水平，有人可能会论证生命权超越财产权，一项保护以生命为代价牟取暴利的法律是一项不公正的法律，可以打破。
Use this case to demonstrate applied ethical reasoning. Contrast Kantian absolutism—”Always tell the truth and obey the law”—with rule utilitarianism, which might allow an exception if a universal rule like “Steal only to save a life” leads to greater overall utility. Always show awareness that moral dilemmas involve genuine clashes of values.
用这个案例来展示应用伦理学推理。将康德式的绝对主义——“永远说真话并遵守法律”——与规则功利主义进行对比，后者可能会允许一个例外，如果像“仅在拯救生命时偷盗”这样的普遍规则能带来更大的总体功利。始终表现出这样的意识：道德困境包含了真正的价值观冲突。
9. Structuring Your Written Analysis: AO1, AO2, AO3 | 构建你的书面分析：AO1、AO2、AO3
Cambridge assessment objectives shape how you should write. AO1 (Knowledge and Understanding) requires you to accurately present philosophical ideas, concepts, and arguments. Use phrases like “Descartes argued that…” or “According to Kant’s categorical imperative…”.
剑桥的评估目标塑造了你的写作方式。AO1（知识和理解）要求你准确地呈现哲学观点、概念和论证。使用像“笛卡尔论证说……”或“根据康德的定言命令……”这样的短语。
AO2 (Analysis and Evaluation) demands you break down arguments and assess their strengths and weaknesses. Go beyond description: “This premise is weak because it relies on an unsubstantiated assumption about human nature.”
AO2（分析和评估）要求你拆解论证并评估其优点和弱点。超越描述：“这个前提是薄弱的，因为它依赖于一个关于人性未经证实的假设。”
AO3 (Communication and Argument) examines how clearly and coherently you present your reasoning. Use signposting words: “However,” “Therefore,” “This implies that…,” and “A deeper problem is…” Structure your answer with a short introduction, clear paragraphs, and a reflective conclusion.
AO3（沟通和论证）考察你呈现推理过程的清晰度和连贯性。使用指示词：“然而”、“因此”、“这意味着……”和“一个更深层的问题是……”用简短的引言、清晰的段落和反思性的结论来构建你的回答。
Practice target: For any case study, write a first sentence that explicitly links the case to a syllabus topic. Then dedicate one paragraph to a strong argument supporting one view, and another paragraph to a strong counterargument, before you give your own overall judgement.
练习目标：对于任何案例研究，写一个明确将案例与课程主题联系起来的第一句话。然后，用一段来阐述支持一个观点的强论证，再用另一段阐述一个强有力的反对论证，然后再给出你自己的总体判断。
10. Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them | 常见陷阱及如何避免
Pitfall 1 – Retelling instead of analysing: Many students spend too long describing the case. Solution: Summarise the scenario in one concise sentence, then spend the rest of the answer on philosophical analysis.
陷阱 1 – 复述而非分析：许多学生花太长时间描述案例。解决：用一句简洁的句子概括情境，然后将剩下的回答用于哲学分析。
Pitfall 2 – One-sided arguments: Presenting only your favourite view makes your essay look superficial. Solution: Always include at least one strong opposing argument and respond to it. This shows balance and higher-order thinking.
陷阱 2 – 片面的论证：只呈现你喜欢的观点会使你的文章看起来肤浅。解决：总是至少包含一个强有力的反对论证并对其回应。这表明了平衡和高阶思维。
Pitfall 3 – Missing evaluative language: Your examiner needs to see you making judgements. Solution: Use words like “convincing,” “problematic,” “consistent,” “untenable,” and “more compelling” to signal your evaluation.
陷阱 3 – 缺少评估性语言：考官需要看到你做出判断。解决：使用像“令人信服的”、“有问题的”、“一致的”、“站不住脚的”和“更有说服力的”这样的词来标志你的评估。
Pitfall 4 – Ignoring the examiner’s instruction: If the question says “To what extent do you agree,” you must not simply say “I agree.” Discuss degrees: “I agree with the utilitarian approach in the original trolley problem, but I find it much less convincing in the pushing scenario.”
陷阱 4 – 忽视考官的指令：如果问题问“你在多大程度上同意”，你绝不能仅仅说“我同意”。要讨论程度：“我同意在原始电车难题中的功利主义方法，但我发现在推动人的情境中它远没有那么有说服力。”
11. Practice Exercise: Apply the Framework Yourself | 练习：自己应用这个框架
Here is a mini case study for you to practise on: “In a small town, a taxi driver finds a wallet containing £5000 and the owner’s ID. No one is watching. The driver’s daughter needs an urgent operation costing exactly £5000 that the family cannot afford. Should the driver return the wallet?”
这里有一个迷你案例供你练习：“在一个小镇上，一名出租车司机捡到一个装有 5000 英镑和失主身份证的钱包。没有人看见。司机的女儿需要一笔紧急手术，费用正好是 5000 英镑，而这个家庭负担不起。司机应该归还钱包吗？”
Step 1: Identify the core issue (e.g., duty to return property vs. duty of care to family). Step 2: Clarify concepts (absolute duty, moral luck, empathy). Step 3: Bring in a utilitarian (consequences for daughter outweigh owner’s loss) and a Kantian (the act treats the owner merely as a means). Step 4: Evaluate which framework better captures our moral intuitions. Step 5: Conclude with a tentative judgement, acknowledging the emotional weight of the dilemma.
第一步：确定核心问题（例如，返还财产的义务 vs. 对家庭的关怀义务）。第二步：澄清概念（绝对义务、道德运气、同理心）。第三步：引入功利主义（对女儿的结果超过失去钱包的损失）和康德伦理学（此行为仅仅把失主当作手段）。第四步：评估哪个框架更好地捕捉了我们的道德直觉。第五步：以尝试性的判断作结，承认这个困境的情感分量。
Write a one-paragraph response, then check it against the AO criteria. Have you demonstrated knowledge (AO1), analysed the clash (AO2), and written a clear, structured evaluation (AO3)? Regular practice with small cases like this will build the confidence you need for your final exam.
写一段回应，然后根据 AO 标准检查它。你是否展示了知识（AO1），分析了冲突（AO2），并写出了清晰、结构化的评估（AO3）？定期用这样的小案例进行练习，将为你建立最终考试所需的信心。
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