📚 GCSE AQA Philosophy: Case Study Practice Exercises | GCSE AQA 哲学：案例分析实战演练
In GCSE AQA Philosophy, case studies are an essential tool for developing critical thinking and exam skills. This article provides a series of practical case studies covering key topics such as ethical theories, arguments for God’s existence, the problem of evil, religious experience, and the nature of knowledge. Each case is accompanied by paired English and Chinese analysis to support bilingual revision.
在 GCSE AQA 哲学课程中，案例研究是培养批判性思维和考试技巧的重要工具。本文提供一系列实用案例研究，涵盖伦理学理论、上帝存在的论证、恶的问题、宗教经验以及知识的本质等关键主题。每个案例都配有英中配对分析，以支持双语复习。
1. The Trolley Problem and Utilitarianism | 电车难题与功利主义
Imagine a runaway trolley heading towards five people tied to the track. You can pull a lever to divert the trolley onto another track, but there is one person tied there. Would you pull the lever?
想象一辆失控的电车冲向被绑在轨道上的五个人。你可以拉动一个杠杆把电车转向另一条轨道，但那上面也绑着一个人。你会拉动杠杆吗？
From a utilitarian perspective, pulling the lever is justified because it maximises overall happiness: saving five lives at the cost of one produces a greater net utility. Bentham’s hedonic calculus would weigh the pleasures and pains to determine the right action.
从功利主义的角度看，拉动杠杆是正当的，因为它最大化了总体幸福：以一条生命为代价拯救五条生命，产生了更大的净效用。边沁的快乐计算会权衡快乐和痛苦以决定正确的行为。
However, act utilitarianism is often criticised for ignoring individual rights and justice. By treating the one person merely as a means to achieve a greater good, it appears to violate the principle that each person has inherent dignity. Rule utilitarianism might respond by considering a rule such as ‘Do not sacrifice innocent people’ as generally maximising happiness.
然而，行为功利主义经常被批评忽视了个人权利和公正。通过把那个人仅仅当作实现更大善的手段，它似乎违反了每个人具有固有尊严的原则。规则功利主义可能会回应说，像“不要牺牲无辜者”这样的规则在总体上能最大化幸福。
In an exam, clearly explain how both act and rule utilitarianism would approach the case, then evaluate using concepts like rights, justice, and the demands of impartiality.
在考试中，要清楚地解释行为功利主义和规则功利主义会如何处理这个案例，然后使用权利、公正和不偏不倚的要求等概念进行评估。
2. Kantian Ethics and the Inquiring Murderer | 康德伦理学与追问的凶手
A notorious case for Kantian ethics is the ‘inquiring murderer’: a would-be killer asks where your friend is hiding. According to Kant’s categorical imperative, lying is always wrong because if everyone lied, trust would collapse, making lying self-defeating.
对康德伦理学的著名考验是“追问的凶手”：一个意图行凶的人问你的朋友藏在哪里。根据康德的绝对命令，撒谎总是错误的，因为如果人人都撒谎，信任就会崩溃，使撒谎变得自我挫败。
Kant would argue that truthfulness is a perfect duty owed to all rational beings. Even to save a life, we must not treat the murderer as a mere means by deceiving him, as that violates his rationality and the moral law.
康德会论证诚实是对所有理性存在者的完全义务。即使是为了拯救一条生命，我们也不应通过欺骗凶手而将他仅仅当作手段，因为那侵犯了他的理性和道德法则。
Critics point out that this position ignores the consequences and leads to morally repugnant outcomes. Some suggest making a distinction between a lie and a misleading truth, but for Kant any intentional deception is problematic.
批评者指出，这种立场忽视了后果，并导致道德上令人反感的结局。有人建议区分谎言和误导的真话，但对康德而言，任何故意的欺骗都是有问题的。
When answering, explain the formulation of the categorical imperative (universal law and the formula of humanity), apply it strictly, and then evaluate whether Kant’s absolutism is defensible.
作答时，要解释绝对命令的表述（普遍法则公式和人性公式），严格应用，然后评估康德的绝对主义是否站得住脚。
3. Natural Law Theory and Abortion | 自然法理论与堕胎
Consider a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape and is considering abortion. Natural law theory, rooted in Aquinas, holds that the primary precept of preserving innocent life directly prohibits abortion, as it frustrates the natural telos of procreation.
考虑一位因强奸而怀孕并正考虑堕胎的女性。植根于阿奎那的自然法理论认为，保存无辜生命的首要诫命直接禁止堕胎，因为它挫败了生育的自然目的。
The doctrine of double effect might permit a hysterectomy to save a mother’s life, because the death of the fetus is a foreseen but unintended side-effect. In the rape case, however, abortion directly intends to end fetal life, so double effect cannot justify it.
双重效应学说可能允许通过子宫切除术来挽救母亲的生命，因为胎儿的死亡是预见但非故意的副作用。然而，在强奸案例中，堕胎直接意图终止胎儿生命，因此双重效应无法为之辩护。
This case tests whether natural law can accommodate genuine compassion. Critics argue that the inflexibility of primary precepts leads to harsh consequences, while supporters maintain that moral absolutes are grounded in human nature and divine reason.
该案例考验自然法能否容纳真正的同情心。批评者认为主要诫命的僵化会导致严酷后果，而支持者则坚持道德绝对是基于人性和神圣理性。
In an exam answer, outline the relevant precepts, apply double effect, and evaluate whether natural law provides a convincing guide in such difficult situations.
在考试答案中，要概述相关的诫命，应用双重效应，并评估自然法在这种困境中是否提供了令人信服的指导。
4. Divine Command Theory and the Binding of Isaac | 神命论与以撒的捆绑
The biblical story of Abraham being commanded by God to sacrifice his son Isaac poses a profound challenge to divine command theory. If ‘good’ simply means ‘what God commands’, then the command to kill an innocent child would be good by definition.
圣经中亚伯拉罕被上帝命令献祭儿子以撒的故事，对神命论构成了深刻挑战。如果“善”仅仅意味着“上帝命令的”，那么要求杀死一个无辜孩子的命令从定义上讲就是善的。
The Euthyphro dilemma asks: is an act good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good? If the former, morality seems arbitrary; if the latter, goodness exists independently of God, undermining divine omnipotence.
尤息弗罗困境追问：一个行为是善的是因为上帝如此命令，还是上帝命令它是因为它是善的？如果是前者，道德就显得任意；如果是后者，善就独立于上帝而存在，从而削弱了上帝的全能。
Some modified divine command theories respond by grounding morality in God’s unchanging, loving character rather than sheer will. Nevertheless, the case of Isaac forces us to consider whether we would follow a command that conflicts with our deepest moral intuitions.
一些修正的神命论回应说，将道德根植于上帝不变的爱之本性而非单纯的意志。然而，以撒的案例迫使我们思考，我们是否会遵从与自身最深层道德直觉相冲突的命令。
To evaluate this case, directly engage with the Euthyphro dilemma, consider the modified theory, and assess whether it can rescue divine command theory from arbitrariness.
要评价该案例，要直接面对尤息弗罗困境，考虑修正理论，并评估它能否将神命论从任意性中拯救出来。
5. The Design Argument and Evolution | 设计论证与进化论
Imagine walking across a heath and finding a watch. William Paley argued that the watch’s complexity and purpose imply a watchmaker. Analogously, the intricate complexity of the natural world—such as the human eye—points to an intelligent designer.
想象在荒野上漫步并发现一块手表。威廉·佩利论证说，手表的复杂性和目的性意味着存在一位制表匠。类似地，自然界的复杂精妙——比如人眼——指向一位智慧的设计者。
Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection offers an alternative explanation: apparent design can arise gradually through random variations and the survival of the fittest, without requiring a designer. The eye, for instance, has evolved through intermediate stages.
达尔文的自然选择进化论提供了另一种解释：表面的设计可以通过随机变异和适者生存逐渐产生，而不需要一位设计者。例如，眼睛已经通过中间阶段进化而来。
Hume’s earlier criticisms also weaken Paley’s analogy: the world may be more like a vegetable or a self-sustaining system than a machine. Moreover, if there is a designer, the existence of imperfection and evil suggests a limited or morally flawed designer, not an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God.
休谟早先的批评也削弱了佩利的类比：世界可能更像蔬菜或自我维持的系统，而非机器。此外，如果存在一位设计者，不完美和恶的存在就暗示了一位有限或有道德缺陷的设计者，而非全知全能全善的上帝。
In your revision, structure your answer to examine Paley’s argument, the evolutionary counter-argument, and Hume’s philosophical challenges, then reach a reasoned conclusion about the strength of the design argument.
在复习中，要组织答案考查佩利的论证、进化论的反驳以及休谟的哲学挑战，然后对设计论证的强弱作出有理有据的结论。
6. The Problem of Evil and a Natural Disaster | 恶的问题与自然灾害
A devastating earthquake kills thousands of innocent people, including children, and causes immense suffering. How can an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving God allow such natural evil? The logical problem of evil, formulated by J.L. Mackie, claims that the existence of such an event is incompatible with the existence of God.
一场毁灭性的地震导致包括儿童在内的数千无辜者死亡，并造成巨大苦难。一位全能、全知、全爱的上帝怎会允许这样的自然恶？麦基提出的逻辑恶问题声称，此类事件的存在与上帝的存在不相容。
The free will defence mainly addresses moral evil, not natural evil. For natural disasters, theodicies include the soul-making defence (Irenaeus/Hick), where suffering provides opportunities for growth, compassion, and developing virtues. Greater good theodicies argue that the universe operates according to natural laws that overall are good, even if they sometimes produce disasters.
自由意志辩护主要针对道德恶，而非自然恶。对于自然灾害，神义论包括灵魂锻造辩护（爱任纽/希克），认为苦难提供了成长、培养同情心和发展美德的机会。更大善的神义论认为，宇宙按照总体上善的自然法则运行，即便有时会产生灾难。
Critics note that the sheer amount and apparent gratuitousness of suffering challenges soul-making: does an infant’s agony genuinely serve any greater good? Moreover, an omnipotent God could presumably achieve soul-making without such horrendous suffering.
批评者指出，苦难的数量之多和表面上无端的性质挑战了灵魂锻造说：婴儿的痛苦真能为某个更大善服务吗？而且，全能上帝大概无需如此恐怖的苦难也能实现灵魂锻造。
When tackling a problem of evil question, clearly state whether you are dealing with the logical or evidential problem, explain the relevant theodicies, and evaluate their success.
当处理恶的问题时，清楚地说明你在处理逻辑恶问题还是证据恶问题，解释相关的神义论，并评估它们的成功度。
7. Religious Experience and a Vision of Mary | 宗教经验与圣母显现
A person claims to have seen the Virgin Mary, who delivered a message of peace and prophecy. How can we assess whether this experience is a genuine encounter with the divine or a hallucination? William James identified four characteristics of mystical experiences: ineffability, noetic quality, transiency, and passivity.
某人声称看到了圣母玛利亚，玛利亚传递了和平与预言的信息。我们如何评估这次经历是真实与神的相遇还是幻觉？威廉·詹姆斯指出了神秘经验的四个特征：不可言喻性、知识性、短暂性和被动性。
Applying James’s criteria, the person may describe the vision as beyond language (ineffability), feeling they gained deep truths (noetic quality), lasting a short time (transiency), and happening without their active control (passivity). This would qualify as a mystical experience.
应用詹姆斯的准则，此人可能描述异象不可言喻（不可言喻性），感到获得了深刻真理（知识性），持续时间短暂（短暂性），并且发生时不为其主动控制（被动性）。这便符合神秘经验的条件。
However, alternative explanations must be considered: the placebo effect, wish-fulfilment, or neurological causes like temporal lobe epilepsy. Also, the diversity of religious experiences across cultures—visions of Hindu gods, for example—challenges the idea that any one revelation is exclusively true.
然而，必须考虑替代解释：安慰剂效应、愿望满足，或者如颞叶癫痫这样的神经性原因。此外，跨文化宗教经验的多样性——例如见到印度教神祇的异象——挑战了任何单一启示为唯一真的观点。
An effective exam answer will refer to James’s features, assess whether they can distinguish genuine revelation from delusion, and weigh the challenge of conflicting claims.
一个有效的考试答案将提及詹姆斯的特征，评估它们能否区分真实启示与幻觉，并权衡相互冲突的主张带来的挑战。
8. Gettier Cases and the Definition of Knowledge | 葛梯尔案例与知识的定义
Smith and Jones have applied for a job. Smith has strong evidence that Jones will get the job (the boss told him) and he sees that Jones has ten coins in his pocket. Smith forms the belief ‘The man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket’. Unbeknown to Smith, he himself will get the job and he also has ten coins in his pocket.
史密斯和琼斯申请工作。史密斯有强有力的证据相信琼斯会得到工作（老板告诉他的），而且他看到琼斯口袋里有十枚硬币。史密斯形成了信念：“得到工作的那个人口袋里有十枚硬币”。史密斯不知道的是，他自己将得到工作，且他自己口袋里也有十枚硬币。
Smith’s belief is true and justified, yet we hesitate to call it knowledge because the justification rests on a false lemma (that Jones will get the job). This is a Gettier case, challenging the traditional tripartite definition of knowledge as justified true belief (JTB).
史密斯的信念是真且得到证成的，但我们不愿称之为知识，因为证成依赖于一个假引理（即琼斯会得到工作）。这是一个葛梯尔案例，挑战了传统的知识三要素定义：已证成的真信念（JTB）。
Responses include adding a ‘no false lemmas’ condition, or moving to a reliabilist account of knowledge (a belief produced by a reliable process). Virtue epistemology focuses on the knower’s intellectual virtues. Each approach has strengths and weaknesses.
回应包括增加“无假引理”条件，或转向知识的可靠主义解释（由可靠过程产生的信念）。德性知识论则聚焦于认知者的理智德性。每种进路都有其优缺点。
For revision, clearly define JTB, present a Gettier case, and explain how it refutes the sufficiency of JTB. Then evaluate at least one alternative account.
复习时，要明确定义 JTB，给出一个葛梯尔案例，并解释它如何驳斥了 JTB 的充分性。然后评估至少一种替代解释。
9. Free Will and Determinism in Neuroscience | 神经科学中的自由意志与决定论
In Libet’s experiments, brain activity related to a decision to move a finger was detected about 300 milliseconds before the subject reported consciously deciding. This has been interpreted to suggest that our choices are determined by unconscious neural processes, challenging the existence of free will.
在利贝特的实验中，与决定移动手指相关的大脑活动在受试者报告有意识决定前约300毫秒就被检测到。这被解读为暗示我们的选择是由无意识的神经过程决定的，从而挑战了自由意志的存在。
Hard determinists conclude that all actions are causally determined, so we are never morally responsible. Compatibilists, however, argue that free will is compatible with determinism if we act according to our desires without coercion. Libet’s findings could fit a compatibilist framework if the neural processes are just the mechanistic underpinning of our choices.
强决定论者得出结论，所有行动都是因果决定的，因此我们从不负有道德责任。然而，相容论者认为，如果我们根据自己的欲望行动且不受强制，自由意志可以与决定论相容。如果神经过程只是我们选择的机械基础，利贝特的发现可能符合相容论的框架。
Libertarians (incompatibilists) insist that genuine free will requires a gap in causal determination, perhaps through an agent-causal power or indeterministic brain events. The Libet experiments thus become a battleground for metaphysical views about human agency.
自由意志论者（非相容论者）则坚持，真正的自由意志需要因果决定中的空隙，或许通过主体因果力或非决定论性的大脑事件。因此，利贝特实验成为关于人类能动性的形而上学观点的战场。
In your writing, differentiate between hard determinism, compatibilism, and libertarianism. Use the Libet case to illustrate the challenge, and assess whether neuroscience undermines or merely illuminates free will.
在写作中，区分强决定论、相容论和自由意志论。使用利贝特案例来说明挑战，并评估神经科学是削弱了自由意志还是仅仅揭示了自由意志。
10. The Meaning of Life and Sisyphus | 生命的意义与西西弗斯
The myth of Sisyphus, condemned to push a boulder up a hill only for it to roll down each time, is used by Albert Camus to depict the absurdity of human existence. Without God or an external purpose, life might seem meaningless.
西西弗斯被罚推巨石上山，而巨石每次又滚落下来，加缪用这个神话来描绘人类存在的荒诞。没有上帝或外在目的，生命可能显得毫无意义。
Camus concludes that ‘one must imagine Sisyphus happy’ because revolting against the absurd and embracing our freedom can create subjective meaning. This contrasts with theistic views where meaning is grounded in a divine plan, as in Leo Tolstoy’s eventual embrace of faith after an existential crisis.
加缪得出结论说“必须想象西西弗斯是幸福的”，因为对荒诞的反抗和拥抱我们的自由能够创造主观意义。这与有神论的观点形成对比，后者认为意义植根于神圣计划，就像托尔斯泰在经历一场存在危机后最终皈依信仰那样。
Existentialists like Sartre emphasise radical freedom and the responsibility to create our own values. Critics worry that subjective meaning may not feel sufficiently real to sustain us in times of profound suffering, whereas objective meaning from God offers permanence.
像萨特这样的存在主义者强调彻底的自由和创造我们自身价值的责任。批评者担心主观意义可能不够真实，不足以在极度苦难中支撑我们，而来自上帝的客观意义则提供了永恒性。
Practise comparing and contrasting these perspectives, considering whether meaning is discovered or created, and whether a meaningful life is possible without belief in the transcendent.
练习比较和对比这些观点，考虑意义是被发现的还是被创造的，以及没有对超越者的信仰是否可能过上有意义的生活。
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