📚 Year 11 WJEC Philosophy: Case Study Practical Exercises | 11年级 WJEC 哲学：案例分析实战演练
Mastering case study analysis is the bridge between memorising theories and scoring top marks in WJEC GCSE Philosophy. This article presents ten carefully crafted practical exercises, each mirroring the style of real exam scenarios. Work through them actively, applying the ethical and philosophical frameworks you have studied, and pay close attention to the evaluative comments that show you how to strengthen your arguments.
掌握案例分析是将背诵的理论转化为 WJEC 哲学高分的关键桥梁。本文提供十个精心设计的实战练习题，每个都模拟真实考题中的情境风格。请主动运用你所学的伦理学和哲学框架来练习，并仔细阅读评估性评注，它们会向你展示如何加强你的论证。
1. The Runaway Trolley: Utilitarian Calculations | 失控电车：功利主义计算
Scenario: A runaway trolley is hurtling towards five track workers who are unable to move. You stand by a lever; if you pull it, the trolley will be diverted onto a side track where only one worker is working. Do you pull the lever?
情境：一辆失控的电车冲向五名无法移动的轨道工人。你站在一个拉杆旁；如果你拉动拉杆，电车将转向另一条岔道，那里只有一名工人在工作。你会拉动拉杆吗？
Applying Act Utilitarianism: Jeremy Bentham’s hedonic calculus invites you to measure the pleasure and pain produced. Pulling the lever brings about the death of one instead of five – a clear net reduction in pain. As a utilitarian, you would be compelled to act because the principle of utility demands maximising overall happiness.
运用行为功利主义：杰里米·边沁的快乐计算法要求你衡量所产生的快乐与痛苦。拉动拉杆造成一人而非五人的死亡，这显然是痛苦的净减少。作为功利主义者，你不得不行动，因为功利原则要求实现最大程度的总体幸福。
Challenge from Rule Utilitarianism: John Stuart Mill might caution that a rule permitting the sacrifice of an innocent person, even to save many, would erode trust in society. Long-term calculations could therefore point against pulling the lever, because a world where people fear being used as means produces greater total unhappiness.
来自规则功利主义的挑战：约翰·斯图尔特·密尔可能会警告，允许牺牲一个无辜者（即便是为了拯救多数人）的规则会侵蚀社会信任。因此，长期的算计可能反对拉动拉杆，因为一个人们担心被当作工具的世界会制造出更大的总不幸。
Evaluative edge: The strength of the utilitarian approach lies in its impartial arithmetic, but the thought experiment exposes a key weakness – it struggles to account for justice and individual rights. In an exam, always ask whether the theory can accommodate our strong intuitive sense that deliberately causing a death is morally different from letting a death happen.
评估优势：功利主义方法的优势在于其不偏不倚的数学计算，但这个思想实验暴露了一个关键弱点——它难以解释正义和个体权利。在考试中，永远要追问该理论是否能容纳我们强烈的直觉：即故意造成死亡与任由死亡发生具有道德上的不同。
2. The Inquiring Murderer: Kant’s Categorical Imperative | 追问凶手：康德的绝对命令
Scenario: A deranged man knocks at your door asking for your friend, who is hiding in your house because this man intends to kill him. To save your friend’s life, would it be morally acceptable to lie and say your friend is not there?
情境：一个疯狂的人敲你的门，询问你朋友的下落；你的朋友因为此人想要杀他而正躲在你家里。为了拯救朋友的性命，你谎称他不在，这在道德上可以接受吗？
Kant’s position: Immanuel Kant argued that lying is always wrong because it violates the categorical imperative. To test this, we universalise the maxim ‘it is permissible to lie to save a life.’ If everyone lied whenever they thought it would bring about a good outcome, the institution of truth-telling would collapse, and promises would become meaningless. Since the maxim cannot be universalised without contradiction, lying remains forbidden.
康德的立场：伊曼努尔·康德主张，说谎总是错误的，因为它违反了绝对命令。检验这一点的办法是将格准“为了拯救生命可以说谎”普遍化。如果任何人在认为会带来好结果时都可以说谎，讲真话的机制就会崩溃，承诺也会变得毫无意义。既然这格准无法毫无矛盾地被普遍化，说谎就仍然是被禁止的。
A second formulation: Kant also insists we must never treat a rational being merely as a means. By lying to the murderer, you would be manipulating his rationality – using him as a tool for your goal even if the goal is noble. This violates the duty to respect persons as ends in themselves.
第二表达式：康德还坚持我们绝不能将理性的存在者仅仅当作手段。通过对凶手说谎，你就是在操纵他的理性——将他当作达成你目标的工具，即使这目标是高尚的。这违反了将人作为目的本身加以尊重的义务。
Critical evaluation: Supporters praise Kant for preserving the absolute value of truthfulness. Critics, however, accuse Kantian ethics of being stark and inflexible: it seems to ignore the consequences of letting an innocent person die. Use this tension to build a balanced evaluation in your essay.
批判性评估：支持者称赞康德维护了诚实的绝对价值。然而，批评者指责康德伦理学过于严苛和僵化：它似乎忽视了让无辜者死亡的后果。在论文中利用这种张力来构建均衡的评估。
3. Sarah’s Vision: Religious Experience as Evidence | 莎拉的异象：宗教经验作为证据
Scenario: Sarah, a non-religious nurse, reports having seen a radiant figure of light while sitting alone in a hospital chapel. The figure spoke words of comfort and she was left with an overwhelming sense of peace. She now believes she has encountered God. Does her experience provide good grounds for believing in God’s existence?
情境：莎拉是一位无宗教信仰的护士，她说自己独自坐在医院礼拜堂时看到一个光芒四射的人影。那个人影对她说出了安慰的话语，她感受到一种势不可挡的平和。现在她相信自己遇见了上帝。她的经验是否为相信上帝存在提供了良好依据？
Argument from religious experience: William James identified features of genuine mystical experiences – ineffability, noetic quality, transiency, and passivity. Sarah’s experience seems to fit this pattern, suggesting it might be a direct perception of a transcendent reality. If we usually trust our senses unless we have a defeater, prima facie we ought to trust verifiable religious experiences too.
来自宗教经验的论证：威廉·詹姆斯指出了真实神秘经验的特性——不可言说性、知性特质、短暂性和被动感。莎拉的经验看似符合这一模式，这暗示它或许是对超验实在的直接感知。如果我们通常相信自己的感官，除非有废除理由，那么初步来看我们也应当相信可验证的宗教经验。
Challenging the inference: Psychological explanations, such as wish-fulfilment or the effect of stress, can account for Sarah’s vision without invoking God. The argument also confronts the problem of diversity: different people have visions of different deities, which makes it difficult to claim that any single experience reliably points to the existence of a specific God.
对推论的质疑：心理学解释，例如愿望满足或压力效应，可以不用诉诸上帝就能解释莎拉的异象。该论证还面临多样性的问题：不同的人会看见不同神灵的异象，这使得我们很难声称任何单一的经验可靠地指向特定上帝的存在。
Exam tip: Remember that for WJEC you need to weigh the cumulative argument. Sarah’s conversion experience may not be sufficient proof on its own, but framed as part of a cumulative case alongside design and cosmological arguments, it gains persuasive force.
考试提示：记住，对于 WJEC 你需要权衡累积性论证。莎拉的皈依经验本身或许不足以构成证明，但若将其作为设计论证和宇宙论论证等组成的累积性论据的一部分，它便获得了说服力。
4. The Cosmic Watchmaker: Design Argument Analysis | 宇宙钟表匠：设计论证分析
Scenario: Imagine you are walking on a beach and discover a complex pocket watch lying in the sand. Its intricate cogs and springs work together purposefully. You naturally infer there is a watchmaker. This analogy, made famous by William Paley, is used to argue that the universe, equally complex and ordered, must have a designer.
情境：想象你在海滩上散步，发现沙子里躺着一只复杂精密的怀表。它错综的齿轮和发条有目的地协同运作。你很自然会推断出有一位制表匠。这个由威廉·佩利闻名的类比被用来论证：同样复杂和有序的宇宙必定有一位设计者。
Strength of the analogy: The argument’s appeal lies in its simplicity and intuitive force. The sheer improbability of the universe’s fine-tuned laws – if gravity were slightly different, life would be impossible – suggests purpose. Paley’s argument presents the appearance of design as evidence of actual design, and this inductive inference seems reasonable at first glance.
类比的优点：该论证的吸引力在于它的简单性和直觉力量。宇宙精密调谐的规律具有极高不可能性——如果引力稍有不同，生命就不可能存在——这暗示着目的。佩利的论证将设计的表象当作真实设计的证据，这一归纳性推理初看之下似乎合理。
Philosophical weaknesses: David Hume, writing before Paley, foreshadowed criticisms. We have abundant experience of watches being made by humans, but we have no experience of universe-making. The analogy is weak. Moreover, the argument does not establish the attributes of the designer; the designer could be a team of imperfect gods, or an infant deity learning by trial and error. Darwin’s theory of evolution provided an alternative explanation: natural selection generates complex order without conscious purpose.
哲学弱点：大卫·休谟在佩利之前写作，已预示了批评。我们有大量手表由人制造的经验，但我们没有任何创造宇宙的经验。类比因此薄弱。此外，该论证无法确立设计者的属性；设计者可能是一组不完美的诸神，或者一个通过试错学习的新生神祇。达尔文的进化论提供了一种替代性解释：自然选择无需有意识的目的就能产生复杂的秩序。
5. The Suffering Child: Problem of Evil | 受难的孩子：恶的问题
Scenario: A ten-year-old child in a war-torn region has lost her entire family and is now starving and terminally ill. She pleads in prayer for relief that never comes. How can a loving, all-powerful God permit such intense suffering?
情境：一个身处战乱地区的十岁孩子失去了所有家人，正在忍饥挨饿并罹患绝症。她祈祷恳求解脱，却从未得到应答。一个慈爱且全能的神怎能容许如此深重的苦难？
The logical problem of evil: The inconsistent triad states that the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God is logically incompatible with the existence of evil. If God is willing but not able to prevent suffering, He is not omnipotent; if able but not willing, He is not all-good. Since suffering exists, the traditional God cannot.
恶的逻辑问题：不一致三联指出，全能、全善的上帝与恶的存在在逻辑上无法兼容。如果上帝愿意却无法防止苦难，祂便不是全能的；如果能够却不愿意，祂便不是全善的。既然苦难存在，传统的上帝便无法存在。
A theist may respond with the free will defence: a world containing free creatures who can choose love and goodness is better than a world of automated puppets. Genuine free will necessarily opens the door to moral evil. However, this defence struggles to explain natural evil like the child’s terminal illness, which is not caused by human choice. Another response, the soul-making theodicy, suggests that suffering builds virtue and draws the child closer to God, but critics rightly ask whether the price of such character development is unjustifiably high.
有神论者可能会用自由意志辩护来回应：一个包含能选择爱与善的自由造物的世界要比一个充满自动木偶的世界好。真正的自由意志必然为道德之恶打开了大门。然而，这一辩护难以解释自然之恶，如那孩子的绝症——它并非由人的选择造成。另一种回应是灵魂塑造的神义论，它认为苦难能够塑造美德，并使孩子更靠近上帝，但批评者理所当然要问：这种品格塑造的代价是否过高到难以正名。
6. The Perfect Island: Ontological Argument | 完美岛屿：本体论论证
Scenario: A philosophy student declares: “I define God as the greatest conceivable being. A being that exists only in the mind is not as great as one that exists in reality. Therefore, God must exist in reality.” A friend responds: “I define the perfect island as the greatest conceivable island, so by your logic it must exist too.” This ridicule invites us to examine Anselm’s ontological argument.
情境：一个哲学学生宣称：“我把上帝定义为可设想的最大存在者。只存在于心灵中的存在者不如在现实中存在的那么伟大。因此，上帝必定在现实中存在。”朋友回应说：“我把完美岛屿定义为可设想的最大岛屿，那按你的逻辑它也必定存在。”这种嘲讽邀请我们审视安瑟伦的本体论论证。
Anselm’s argument: In the Proslogion, Anselm argues that even the fool who says ‘there is no God’ understands the concept of a being than which nothing greater can be conceived. If this being existed only in the understanding, we could conceive of a greater being – one that exists in reality. Since the definition demands maximal greatness, God cannot exist only in the understanding; God must exist in reality.
安瑟伦的论证：在《宣讲》中，安瑟伦论证说，即使那位说“没有上帝”的愚人也理解“那无法设想有比之更伟大的存在者”这一概念。如果这一存在者仅仅存在于知性中，我们就能设想一个更伟大的存在者——一个存在于现实中的。既然定义要求最大的伟大性，上帝就不可能只存在于知性中；上帝必定存在于现实中。
Gaunilo’s island: Gaunilo’s objection is that the same logic would ‘prove’ the existence of a perfect island, a perfect unicorn, or any maximal concept. Anselm’s response is that islands are contingent, material things that can always be added to, whereas the greatest conceivable being is a necessary being whose attributes do not admit of degrees in the same way. More powerfully, Immanuel Kant rejects the argument by stating that existence is not a predicate – it does not add to the description of a concept. One hundred real thalers do not have any additional conceptual content over one hundred possible thalers.
高尼罗的岛屿：高尼罗的反驳是，同样的逻辑也能“证明”完美岛屿、完美独角兽，或任何最大化概念的存在。安瑟伦的回应是，岛屿是偶然的、物质的事物，总是可以再添加点什么，而可设想的最大存在者是必然的存在者，其属性并不以同样的方式容纳程度差别。更致命的是，康德通过指出“存在不是谓词”来拒绝该论证——存在并不给一个概念增添任何内容。一百块真实的银币相对于一百块可能的银币，并没有增加任何概念性内容。
7. The Divided Mind: Dualism vs. Materialism | 分裂的心灵：二元论与唯物主义
Scenario: Twins Mary and Jane are discussing a loved one who suffered a severe stroke. Before the stroke he was witty and musical; afterwards his personality changed dramatically and he could no longer play the piano. Mary argues that the brain damage physically undermined his mind, demonstrating that mind and brain are one. Jane insists his true self is still there, trapped in a damaged brain. Which view is more philosophically robust?
情境：双胞胎玛丽和珍正在讨论一位患上严重中风的亲人。中风前他风趣幽默、精通音乐；中风后性格剧变，再也不能弹奏钢琴。玛丽认为脑部损伤从生理上摧毁了他的心灵，这表明心灵与大脑是同一的。珍则坚持他真正的自我仍然存在，只是被困在了受损的大脑中。哪一方的观点在哲学上更站得住脚？
Dualism’s appeal: Jane’s instinct echoes substance dualism, championed by Descartes. The mind, on this view, is a non-physical thinking substance that interacts with the body. The ‘trapped’ metaphor reflects our common experience of feeling distinct from our physical vessel. Dualism also neatly explains why mental states feel private and subjective.
二元论的吸引力：珍的直觉呼应了笛卡尔所捍卫的实体二元论。按此观点，心灵是一种非物质的思维实体，与身体相互作用。“困住”的比喻反映了我们时常感到自身有别于肉体之躯的共同体验。二元论也简洁地解释了为何心理状态感觉是私人和主观的。
Materialism’s strength: Mary’s position finds overwhelming support in neuroscience. Damage to specific brain regions – Broca’s area, the hippocampus – predictably erases particular mental capacities. If the mind were a distinct, non-physical substance, it is not clear why it should be so dependent on a physical organ. The dependency argument powerfully suggests that consciousness is nothing over and above brain activity, a perspective known as physicalism or materialism.
唯物主义的强项：玛丽的立场获得了神经科学的压倒性支持。对特定脑区——布罗卡区、海马体——的损伤，可以预见地消除特定的心智能力。如果心灵是一种独特的非物质实体，那它为何会如此依赖一个物质器官就不清楚了。依赖性论证强有力地提示，意识不过是大脑活动而已，这一观点被称为物理主义或唯物主义。
Evaluation: In WJEC answers, highlight the interaction problem for dualism – how can a non-physical mind cause changes in a physical body? – and the qualia problem for materialism – no description of neurons firing seems to capture what it feels like to be sad. A well-rounded evaluation weighs both sides.
评估：在 WJEC 的答案中，要突出二元论的交互难题——非物质心灵如何能在物质身体中引起变化？——以及唯物主义的感质难题——无论对神经元放电如何描述，似乎都无法捕捉悲伤的切身感受。全面评估需要权衡双方。
8. The Stopped Clock: A Gettier Case on Knowledge | 停摆的时钟：关于知识的盖梯尔案例
Scenario: At exactly twelve noon, Laura looks at a clock on her classroom wall that has always been reliable. The clock shows 12:00. Laura forms the belief “it is twelve noon.” Unbeknownst to her, the clock stopped exactly twenty-four hours earlier. Her belief is true by sheer coincidence. Does Laura know that it is twelve noon?
情境：正好在正午十二点，劳拉看了看教室里一块一直很可靠的挂钟。钟上显示的是12:00。劳拉形成了“现在是正午十二点”的信念。她所不知道的是，这块钟正好在二十四小时前停摆了。她的信念纯粹出于巧合而为真。劳拉知道现在是正午十二点吗？
The JTB account: Traditionally, knowledge was defined as justified true belief. Laura’s belief is true, and she has justification – the clock has been a reliable source in the past. Yet intuitively, we want to say she does not know. Edmund Gettier used cases like this to show that the traditional tripartite definition is insufficient.
JTB （证成的真信念）解释：传统上，知识被定义为经过证成的真信念。劳拉的信念是真的，而且她拥有证成——那块钟过去一直是个可靠的信息来源。然而直觉上，我们会认为她并不知道。埃德蒙德·盖梯尔用此类案例表明，传统的三元定义是不够的。
Fixing the gap: To rescue the definition, philosophers add a ‘no false lemmas’ condition: the justification must not rely on any false belief. Laura’s justification implicitly relies on the false lemma that ‘the clock is working normally.’ Because of this undefeated falsehood, her true belief falls short of knowledge. Alternate approaches, such as reliabilism, state that a belief counts as knowledge if it results from a reliable cognitive process; since a stopped clock is not a reliable process, the belief fails the test.
弥补缺陷：为了挽救这个定义，哲学家添加了“无错误引理”条件：证成不得依赖于任何错误信念。劳拉的证成隐含着“这块钟运行正常”的错误引理。由于这个未被击败的错误，她的真信念不构成知识。替代性方法，如可靠主义，主张一个信念若源自可靠的认知过程便算作知识；既然停摆的钟不是可靠过程，该信念便通不过检验。
Exam relevance: Gettier problems are brilliant for WJEC philosophy because they demand that you move from describing theories to critically evaluating their limitations.
考试关联：盖梯尔问题对 WJEC 哲学非常有用，因为它要求你从描述理论转向批判性地评估其局限性。
9. The Fateful Gene: Free Will and Determinism | 命运基因：自由意志与决定论
Scenario: Alex is convicted of a violent assault. During the trial, a neuroscientist testifies that Alex carries a rare gene variant strongly correlated with impulsive aggression, and brain scans show reduced activity in the prefrontal cortex responsible for self-control. Given these determinate prior causes, can we truly hold Alex morally responsible for his actions?
情境：亚历克斯因暴力伤人被定罪。审判中，一位神经科学家作证说，亚历克斯携带一种与冲动攻击强关联的罕见基因变体，并且脑部扫描显示他负责自我控制的前额叶皮层活动减弱。考虑到这些决定性的先决原因，我们还能真正地让亚历克斯对其行为承担道德责任吗？
Hard determinism: Hard determinists assert that every event, including human decisions, is the necessary result of prior causes. If Alex’s genes and brain state fully determined his violent outburst, he could not have done otherwise. To blame or punish him in a desert-based sense would be as irrational as blaming a river for flooding. This view endorses a rehabilitation-focused approach to criminal justice.
硬决定论：硬决定论者主张，每一个事件，包括人的决定，都是以先决原因为必要结果的。如果亚历克斯的基因和脑部状态完全决定了他的暴力爆发，那么他本不可能做出别样的行为。以基于应得惩罚的意义去谴责或惩罚他，就与指责河流泛滥一样不理性。这种观点赞同以改造为重点的刑事司法进路。
Compatibilist response: Soft determinists or compatibilists argue that free will is compatible with determinism. As long as Alex acted on his own desires and beliefs without external coercion, he acted freely in the morally relevant sense. The fact that his brain state caused his choice does not negate responsibility; it is simply the mechanism through which his character was expressed. A Hume-esque compatibilist would say that holding Alex responsible is justified because it serves social utility.
相容论回应：软决定论者或称相容论者主张，自由意志与决定论是相容的。只要亚历克斯是出于自己的欲望和信念，在没有外部强制的情况下行动，他就以道德相关的意义自由地行动了。他的脑部状态引发了他的选择这一事实并不否定责任；它不过是其性格借以表达出来的机制。一位休谟式的相容论者会说，追究亚历克斯的责任是正当的，因为它服务于社会效用。
Libertarian angle: Libertarians insist on an undetermined free will. If determinism is true, genuine moral responsibility is an illusion. This case vividly illustrates the high stakes of the debate.
意志自由论视角：意志自由论者坚称存在着非决定的自由意志。如果决定论为真，真正意义的道德责任就是幻象。这个案例生动地说明了这场争论的高利害关系。
10. The Doctor’s Dilemma: Euthanasia and Sanctity of Life | 医生的困境：安乐死与生命神圣性
Scenario: Dr. Chen is treating an 85-year-old patient, Mr. Lewis, who is in unbearable pain from a terminal illness, with no hope of recovery. Mr. Lewis repeatedly and lucidly begs the doctor to administer a lethal injection so that he can die with dignity. Active euthanasia is illegal in his country. What should Dr. Chen do morally?
情境：陈医生正在治疗一位85岁的患者刘易斯先生，他因绝症而承受着难以忍受的疼痛，且毫无康复希望。刘易斯先生反复且清醒地请求医生实施致命注射，以便他能够有尊严地死去。主动安乐死在所在国是违法的。陈医生在道德上应该怎么做？
Quality of life and autonomy: Pro-euthanasia arguments prioritise the principle of respect for autonomy. If Mr. Lewis is a competent adult making an informed choice, preventing his chosen death seems to add unnecessary suffering. The argument from mercy holds that it is more compassionate to end a life of degrading pain than to prolong it for no meaningful purpose. The distinction between active and passive euthanasia is sometimes questioned: if it is acceptable to withdraw treatment and let the patient die, morally it is not obviously worse to actively help them die.
生命质量与自主：支持安乐死的论证优先考虑尊重自主原则。如果刘易斯先生是一个有能力的成年人并在做出知情选择，阻止他选择的死亡似乎是在增添不必要的痛苦。仁慈论证主张，结束有辱人格的疼痛生命要比无意义地延长生命更富同情心。主动安乐死与被动安乐死的区分有时遭到质疑：如果可以接受撤除治疗让患者死去，在道德上主动帮助他们死亡并不明显更糟。
Sanctity of life objection: A religious or deontological perspective maintains that life is a sacred gift from God and only He has the right to take it. Natural law ethics, rooted in Aquinas, would see euthanasia as a violation of the primary precept of preserving innocent life. Even for secular thinkers, legalising active killing can present a dangerous slippery slope: voluntary euthanasia may expand to cover non-voluntary cases, eroding trust in the medical profession.
生命神圣性反对意见：宗教或义务论立场主张，生命是上帝赐予的神圣礼物，只有祂有权取走。植根于阿奎那的自然法伦理学将安乐死视为违反了保存无辜生命的第一诫命。即便对世俗思想家而言，将主动杀人合法化也可能构成危险的滑坡：自愿安乐死可能扩展到涵盖非自愿的情形，侵蚀对医疗职业的信任。
Balanced conclusion: In your essay, acknowledge that both sides grapple with the same fundamental value – compassion. The question is which expression of compassion is most defensible in a pluralist society.
平衡的结论：在你的论文中要承认，双方都在为同一根本价值——同情心——而角力。问题在于，在一个多元社会中，哪种对同情心的表达最站得住脚。
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