AS WJEC Philosophy: Case Study Practical Exercises | AS WJEC 哲学：案例分析实战演练

📚 AS WJEC Philosophy: Case Study Practical Exercises | AS WJEC 哲学：案例分析实战演练

The AS WJEC Philosophy specification challenges students to not only understand philosophical theories but also to apply them critically to real-world and invented case studies. This skill is central to achieving high marks in the examination. This article provides a structured guide to mastering case study analysis, covering ethical dilemmas, epistemological puzzles, arguments for God’s existence, and more. By working through each section, you will develop the ability to identify relevant philosophical concepts, construct rigorous arguments, and evaluate competing viewpoints effectively.

AS WJEC 哲学课程要求学生不仅理解哲学理论，还要批判性地将其应用于真实或虚构的案例分析。这一技能是考试取得高分的关键。本文提供了一套结构化的案例分析实战指南，涵盖伦理困境、认识论谜题、上帝存在论证等主题。通过学习各节内容，你将能够识别相关的哲学概念，构建严密的论证，并有效地评估对立观点。

1. Introduction to Case Study Analysis | 案例分析导论

Case study questions in WJEC AS Philosophy typically present a scenario and ask you to examine it using a particular philosophical theory or to evaluate competing theories in light of the case. The first step is careful reading: identify the key moral or epistemological issue, the agents involved, and the consequences or knowledge claims at stake. Underline or highlight terms that signal philosophical problems – e.g. ‘duty’, ‘happiness’, ‘justified belief’, ‘design’, or ‘evil’.

WJEC AS 哲学中的案例分析题通常会给出一个情境，要求你运用特定的哲学理论来审视，或根据案例评估相互竞争的理论。第一步是仔细阅读：找出关键的道德或认识论问题、涉及的行为者以及相关的后果或知识主张。在表示哲学问题的词语下划线或高亮——例如“义务”“幸福”“被辩护的信念”“设计”或“恶”。

Next, recall the core principles of the theory you are expected to apply. For instance, if the case involves a moral dilemma, you might need to contrast the utilitarian emphasis on maximising happiness with Kantian respect for rational beings. Jot down a quick plan: state the theory, apply it step-by-step to the facts of the case, and finally offer an evaluation. This structure – explain, apply, evaluate – is essential for top-band answers.

接下来，回想你要应用的理论的核心原则。例如，如果案例涉及道德困境，你可能需要对比功利主义强调最大化幸福与康德尊重理性存在者的立场。快速列出提纲：陈述理论，逐步将其应用于案例事实，最后给出评价。这种“解释—应用—评价”的结构对于获得高分至关重要。

Remember that examiners look for precise use of philosophical vocabulary. Instead of saying ‘it makes people happy’, write ‘it promotes the greatest happiness of the greatest number’. Instead of ‘it is right because of duty’, use ‘it is done from the motive of duty in accordance with the categorical imperative’. Precision demonstrates understanding and earns marks.

请记住，考官期待你精确使用哲学术语。与其写“它让人快乐”，不如写“它促进了最大多数人的最大幸福”。与其说“因为义务所以正确”，不如使用“它出于义务动机，并符合定言命令”。精确的表达能体现你的理解，帮你得分。

2. Ethical Theory in Action: Utilitarianism vs. Kantian Deontology | 伦理理论应用：功利主义与康德义务论

Consider the classic case: a runaway trolley is heading towards five people tied to the track. You can pull a lever to divert the trolley onto a side track where one person is tied. Should you pull the lever? From a utilitarian perspective, pulling the lever is morally obligatory because it results in one death rather than five, thereby maximising overall happiness (or minimising suffering). Jeremy Bentham’s hedonic calculus would weigh the intensity, duration, and extent of the pain caused. Act utilitarianism directly evaluates each individual action, while rule utilitarianism would consider whether a rule permitting sacrificing one to save many would lead to greater utility in the long run.

考虑经典案例：一列失控的电车正冲向被绑在轨道上的五个人。你可以拉动拉杆，让电车转向另一条轨道，但那里绑着一个人。你应该拉杆吗？从功利主义角度看，拉杆在道德上是必须的，因为这样造成一人死亡而非五人，从而最大化了整体幸福（或最小化了痛苦）。边沁的快乐计算法会权衡痛苦的程度、持续时间、范围等因素。行为功利主义直接评估每一个行为，而规则功利主义则会考虑允许牺牲一人拯救多人的规则是否在长期带来更大效用。

In contrast, Kantian deontology would forbid pulling the lever. Kant’s categorical imperative demands that we treat humanity always as an end in itself, never merely as a means. By pulling the lever, you would be using the person on the side track merely as a means to save the five, violating their autonomy and rational nature. Moreover, the first formulation – act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law – might be tested: could you rationally will a world where innocent people are sacrificed for the greater good? Kant would argue such a world is contradictory because the very notion of treating persons as ends would be undermined.

相反，康德义务论会禁止拉杆。康德的定言命令要求我们始终把人当作目的本身，而绝不仅仅当作手段。通过拉杆，你就是在把岔道上的人仅仅当作拯救五人的手段，这侵犯了他的自主性和理性本质。此外，第一个公式——只按照你同时能够愿意它成为普遍法则的准则去行动——可以被检验：你能否理性地意愿一个无辜者为更大利益而被牺牲的世界？康德会认为这样的世界是自相矛盾的，因为把人当作目的本身的概念会被破坏。

In your case study analysis, discuss the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches. Utilitarianism faces the ‘justice objection’: it seems to permit sacrificing an innocent individual if it produces a net gain in happiness. Kantianism, however, can be overly rigid in cases where intuition suggests that saving five is the right course. You might introduce W.D. Ross’s prima facie duties as a middle ground, acknowledging conflicting obligations.

在案例分析中，要讨论这两种方法的优缺点。功利主义面临“公正反驳”：它似乎允许牺牲无辜个体，只要能产生净收益。而康德主义在直觉认为救五人是正确的情况下可能过于僵化。你可以引入罗斯的初步义务作为折中，承认存在相互冲突的义务。

3. Epistemology at Work: The Gettier Problem | 认识论实战：盖梯尔问题

In epistemology, the tripartite definition of knowledge states that S knows that P if and only if P is true, S believes that P, and S is justified in believing that P. A case study might present a scenario that challenges this definition. For instance: Suppose Smith and Jones have applied for a job. Smith has strong evidence that Jones will get the job (the company president told him) and that Jones has ten coins in his pocket (Smith counted them). Smith forms the belief: ‘The man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket.’ Unbeknownst to Smith, he himself will get the job, and he also happens to have ten coins in his pocket. So the belief is true, believed, and justified – yet it seems Smith does not know it.

在认识论中，知识的三元定义是：S 知道 P 当且仅当 P 为真，S 相信 P，并且 S 有理由相信 P。案例分析可能给出一个挑战此定义的情境。例如：

Published by TutorHao | AS 哲学 Revision Series | aleveler.com

更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）