Year 13 WJEC Philosophy: Case Study Practice | 案例分析实战演练

📚 Year 13 WJEC Philosophy: Case Study Practice | 案例分析实战演练

Case study questions are a crucial part of the WJEC A Level Philosophy assessment, demanding not just factual recall but the ability to apply abstract theories to concrete scenarios. This experiential guide will equip you with structured approaches, practical examples, and evaluative techniques to excel in such questions.

案例分析题在 WJEC A Level 哲学考试中至关重要，不仅要求记忆事实，更要能够将抽象理论应用于具体情境。这份实操指南将为你提供结构化方法、实例分析和评估技巧，帮助你在此类题目中脱颖而出。

---

1. Understanding the Nature of Case Study Questions | 理解案例分析题目的本质

WJEC case studies present a narrative or situation that raises philosophical issues. You are expected to analyse it using relevant philosophical concepts, theories, and arguments from the syllabus.

WJEC 的案例分析题会呈现一个引发哲学问题的叙事或情境。你需要运用大纲中相关的哲学概念、理论和论证对其进行分析。

Unlike straightforward essay questions, case studies test your skill in recognising which philosophical domains—ethics, epistemology, philosophy of religion, or philosophy of mind—are implicated.

与直接的论文题不同，案例分析考查你识别涉及其中的哲学领域（伦理学、认识论、宗教哲学或心灵哲学）的能力。

Strong responses go beyond describing theories; they critically engage with them, weighing strengths and weaknesses before drawing a reasoned conclusion that directly addresses the scenario.

高分答案不止于描述理论；它们会批判地审视理论，衡量优缺点，并得出直接应对情境的有理有据的结论。

---

2. Step 1: Deconstructing the Scenario | 第一步：解构情境

Begin by reading the case study carefully, underlining key details. Ask yourself: What philosophical question is at stake? Is it a moral dilemma, a puzzle about knowledge, a problem of suffering, or a challenge about consciousness?

首先仔细阅读案例，标出关键细节。问自己：这里涉及什么哲学问题？是道德两难、知识难题、苦难问题，还是关于意识的挑战？

Identify the implicit assumptions in the scenario. For instance, a case about artificial intelligence might assume that passing the Turing Test means having a mind. Your task is to expose such assumptions and challenge them with philosophical theories.

识别情境中的隐含假设。例如，一个关于人工智能的案例可能假设通过图灵测试就意味着拥有心灵。你的任务是揭示这些假设，并用哲学理论对其质疑。

Clarify any ambiguous terms: define ‘knowledge’, ‘good’, ‘mind’, or ‘God’ as they are used in the context. This preliminary definition ensures your analysis is precise.

澄清任何模糊的术语：根据语境定义“知识”、“善”、“心灵”或“上帝”。这种初步定义能确保分析的精确性。

---

3. Step 2: Selecting Appropriate Theories | 第二步：选择合适的理论

Once you have identified the philosophical area, choose two or three relevant theories. For an ethical scenario, you might contrast Act Utilitarianism with Kantian Ethics. For a philosophy of mind case, compare Dualism with Physicalism.

一旦确定了哲学领域，选择两三个相关理论。在伦理情境中，你可以对比行为功利主义与康德伦理学。在心灵哲学案例中，比较二元论与物理主义。

Explain each theory succinctly but accurately. Show that you understand its core principles. For example, when applying Act Utilitarianism, state the principle of utility (‘greatest happiness for the greatest number’) and how it would evaluate the action in the scenario.

简洁而准确地解释每个理论。表明你理解其核心原则。例如，在应用行为功利主义时，阐述功利原则（“最大多数人的最大幸福”），并说明它如何评判情境中的行为。

Do not simply list theories; integrate them into the case. Explain what each theory would conclude about the specific characters, decisions, or evidence presented.

不要仅仅罗列理论；要将它们融入案例。解释每个理论对案例中具体人物、决定或证据会得出什么结论。

---

4. Step 3: Applying Ethical Theories – A Worked Example | 第三步：应用伦理学理论——示例演练

Scenario: “Alex, a lifeguard, must decide whether to save one drowning child or a group of five adults who cannot swim. Currents allow only one rescue attempt.”

情境：“救生员 Alex 必须决定救一名溺水儿童还是一群五个不会游泳的成年人。水流只允许一次救援尝试。”

Apply Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism: Calculate the net happiness. Saving five adults may produce more overall happiness than saving one child, though a child’s potential future happiness must be weighed. This theory would lean towards saving the five.

运用边沁的行为功利主义：计算净幸福量。救五名成年人可能比救一名儿童产生更多总体幸福，尽管还需权衡儿童潜在的未来幸福。该理论倾向于救五人。

Apply Kant’s Deontology: The categorical imperative forbids using persons merely as means. Can one child be sacrificed for five? Kant might argue that we have a duty to save those we can, but the number should not override the intrinsic worth of each individual. This approach might suggest a different outcome.

运用康德的道义论：绝对命令禁止把人仅仅当作手段。可以为一群人牺牲一个孩子吗？康德可能认为我们有责任拯救能救的人，但数量不应超越每个个体的内在价值。这种方法或许指向不同的结果。

Critically evaluate both: Utilitarianism is flexible but can justify intuitively wrong actions. Kant’s theory respects individuals but can be rigid in emergencies. Your job is to argue which provides a more convincing solution to the dilemma.

批判评估两者：功利主义灵活，但可能为直觉上错误的行为辩护。康德理论尊重个体，但在紧急情况下可能过于僵化。你的任务是论证哪个理论为这一两难提供了更有说服力的解决方案。

---

5. Step 4: Tackling Case Studies in Philosophy of Religion | 第四步：应对宗教哲学案例分析

Scenario: “In a village, a terrible plague kills innocent children and devout believers. A local philosopher argues that a benevolent, all-powerful God cannot exist because of such pointless suffering.”

情境：“在一个村庄，一场可怕的瘟疫杀害了无辜的儿童和虔诚的信徒。一位当地哲学家论证说，由于这种无谓的苦难，仁慈全能的上帝不可能存在。”

Identify the Logical Problem of Evil: Theist must hold that God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient, yet evil exists. The case explicitly uses evil to challenge God’s existence.

识别恶的逻辑问题：有神论者必须坚持上帝全能、全善、全知，却存在恶。案例明确用恶来挑战上帝存在。

Published by TutorHao | Year 13 哲学 Revision Series | aleveler.com

更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）