Case Study Practical Exercises | 案例分析实战演练

📚 Case Study Practical Exercises | 案例分析实战演练

Welcome to this KS3 CAIE Philosophy revision session focused on case study analysis. By examining real-world and hypothetical scenarios, you will learn to identify philosophical issues, construct arguments, and evaluate ethical dilemmas. This practical guide will sharpen your critical thinking skills and prepare you for exam-style questions.

欢迎来到本次 KS3 CAIE 哲学复习专题，聚焦案例分析。通过审视现实世界与假设场景，你将学会识别哲学问题、构建论证并评估伦理困境。这份实用指南将磨炼你的批判性思维能力，并为考试题型做好准备。

1. Understanding Philosophical Case Studies | 理解哲学案例分析

A case study in philosophy is a detailed examination of a particular situation or thought experiment designed to raise fundamental questions. It helps us apply abstract theories to concrete examples, making complex ideas easier to grasp.

哲学中的案例分析是对特定情境或思想实验的详细审视，旨在提出根本性问题。它帮助我们将抽象理论应用于具体事例，使复杂观念更易理解。

When approaching a case study, always identify the central dilemma and the stakeholders involved. Ask: What is at stake? Who is affected? What values or principles are in conflict?

在面对案例分析时，始终要识别核心困境及涉及的利害关系人。问自己：利害关系是什么？谁受到影响？哪些价值观或原则相互冲突？

Good analysis requires you to consider multiple perspectives before reaching a reasoned conclusion. This mirrors what philosophers do when tackling ethical or existential problems.

好的分析要求你在得出理性结论之前考虑多个视角。这正反映了哲学家在解决伦理或存在性问题时所做的工作。

---

2. The Trolley Problem: A Classic Dilemma | 电车难题：经典困境

The Trolley Problem presents a runaway trolley heading towards five people tied to the track. You can flip a switch to divert it to a side track where one person is tied. What should you do?

电车难题呈现了一辆失控的电车冲向铁轨上绑着的五个人。你可以扳动开关使其转向另一条只有一个人被绑的支线。你应该怎么做？

Utilitarianism, a theory focused on maximising overall well-being, suggests you should flip the switch. Sacrificing one life to save five produces the greatest good for the greatest number.

功利主义，一种关注最大化总体福祉的理论，建议你应扳动开关。牺牲一人拯救五人能为最大多数人带来最大善。

Deontological ethics, by contrast, emphasises duties and rules. Deliberately causing someone’s death, even to save others, could be seen as morally wrong because it uses the person merely as a means.

义务论伦理则强调义务与规则。故意导致某人死亡，即使为拯救他人，也可能被视为道德错误，因为它把人仅仅当作手段。

In your exam, you might be asked to evaluate which approach is more convincing. Support your answer with reasons, and consider counter-arguments.

在考试中，你可能会被要求评价哪种方法更有说服力。用理由支持你的答案，并考虑反驳论点。

---

3. Analysing Arguments in Case Studies | 分析案例分析中的论证

Every philosophical case study invites you to construct or evaluate arguments. An argument consists of premises that lead to a conclusion. For example: ‘If killing an innocent person is always wrong (premise), and this action would kill an innocent person (premise), then flipping the switch is wrong (conclusion).’

每个哲学案例分析都要求你构建或评价论证。论证由前提导向结论组成。例如：’如果杀死无辜者总是错误的（前提），而这个举动会杀死一名无辜者（前提），那么扳动开关就是错误的（结论）。’

Check whether the premises are true and whether the conclusion logically follows. A valid argument’s conclusion must be true if the premises are true. A sound argument is valid with true premises.

检查前提是否为真，以及结论是否逻辑地推出。有效论证中，若前提为真，结论必然为真。可靠论证是前提为真的有效论证。

Watch out for common fallacies in case study discussions. The ‘slippery slope’ assumes a small step will inevitably lead to extreme outcomes without evidence. The ‘false dilemma’ presents only two options when there may be more.

警惕案例讨论中常见的谬误。’滑坡’假定一小步必然导致极端后果而无证据。’假两难’只给出两个选项，而实际上可能更多。

---

4. Evaluating Consequences and Duties in Medical Ethics | 评估医疗伦理中的后果与义务

Case study: A doctor gives a placebo (a sugar pill) to a patient suffering from chronic pain, knowing it has no active medicine. The patient feels better due to the placebo effect. Is this ethical?

案例研究：一位医生给患有慢性疼痛的病人开具安慰剂（糖丸），明知其不含有效药物。病人因安慰剂效应感觉好转。这合乎伦理吗？

From a consequentialist perspective, the outcome is positive: the patient’s suffering is reduced without harmful side effects. This seems to justify the deception.

从后果主义角度看，结果是积极的：病人的痛苦减轻了，且无有害副作用。这似乎能为欺骗辩护。

From a deontological perspective, lying violates the duty of honesty and undermines trust between doctor and patient. Even if it leads to good outcomes, the act of deceiving is intrinsically wrong.

从义务论角度看，撒谎违背了诚实义务，破坏了医患之间的信任。即使能带来好结果，欺骗行为本身固有错误。

Use this case to practise weighing consequences against moral rules. Which side has stronger reasons? What might a compromise look like?

用这个案例练习权衡后果与道德规则。哪一方的理由更强？妥协方案可能是什么？

---

5. Plato’s Cave: Perception versus Reality | 柏拉图的洞穴：感知与现实

In Plato’s allegory, prisoners are chained since birth, facing a wall. They see shadows cast by objects behind them and believe these shadows are reality. One prisoner escapes, discovers the outside world, and realises the shadows were mere illusions.

在柏拉图的寓言中，囚徒从出生起就被锁住，面朝墙壁。他们看到身后物体投射的影子，并相信这些影子就是现实。一名囚徒挣脱，发现了外部世界，意识到影子只是幻象。

This story raises questions about knowledge and education. How do we know that what we perceive is real? Could we be like the prisoners, limited by our senses or beliefs?

这个故事提出了关于知识与教育的问题。我们如何知道自己感知到的是真实的？我们是否可能像那些囚徒一样，受限于感官或信念？

In your case study analysis, consider how this allegory relates to modern-day examples, such as people’s reliance on social media filters or ‘echo chambers’. Do these shape a distorted view of reality?

在你的案例分析中，思考这个寓言如何联系当今实例，比如人们对社交媒体滤镜或’回音室’的依赖。这些是否塑造了对现实的扭曲看法？

---

6. Free Will and Moral Responsibility: The Courtroom Case | 自由意志与道德责任：法庭案例

Imagine a defendant on trial for assault. Neuroscientists testify that a brain tumour in an area controlling aggression repeatedly caused violent impulses. The defendant says he couldn’t control his actions. Should he be held fully responsible?

设想一名被告因袭击罪受审。神经科学家作证，一位于控制攻击性区域脑瘤反复导致暴力冲动。被告称自己无法控制行为。他应该承担全部责任吗？

Determinists argue that all events, including human actions, are caused by prior conditions. If the tumour determined the behaviour, the defendant could not have done otherwise, so blame is inappropriate.

决定论者认为，所有事件，包括人类行为，都由先前条件引起。如果脑瘤决定了行为，被告本不可能做出不同选择，因此责备是不适当的。

Compatibilists suggest free will is compatible with determinism if the action stems from the person’s own desires and character. However, the tumour might make the desires not ‘his own’?

相容论者提出，如果行为源于个人的欲望和性格，自由意志与决定论可相容。然而，脑瘤可能使欲望并非’他的’？

Write a short analysis as if advising a judge. Consider the implications for punishment and rehabilitation.

写一篇简短分析，仿佛在向法官提供建议。考虑惩罚与改造的涵义。

---

7. The Ship of Theseus: What Makes You … You? | 忒修斯之船：是什么造就了你……你？

The Ship of Theseus is an ancient puzzle: Over time, every plank and part of a ship is replaced. Is it still the same ship? If not, at what point did it become a different ship?

忒修斯之船是一个古老谜题：随时间推移，船上的每块木板和部件都被更换。它还是原来那艘船吗？如果不是，它在哪一时刻变成了不同的船？

Apply this to personal identity. Your body’s cells are constantly replaced; your memories and personality change. Are you the same person you were five years ago? What maintains identity over time?

将此应用于人格同一性。你身体的细胞不断更新；你的记忆和性格也在变化。你还是五年前那个你吗？是什么维持了身份跨时间的一致性？

Philosophers debate whether identity is based on physical continuity, psychological connectedness (like memories), or a unique soul. Which view do you find most convincing and why?

哲学家们争论身份是基于身体连续性、心理关联（如记忆）还是独特灵魂。哪种观点你认为最有说服力，为什么？

---

8. The Lifeboat Dilemma: Hard Choices in Survival | 救生船困境：生存中的艰难抉择

A lifeboat is adrift with 12 survivors, but it only has supplies for 6 to survive until rescue. To save anyone, some must be thrown overboard. Is it ever morally acceptable to select who dies for the greater good?

一艘救生船载有12名幸存者漂流，但物资只够6人坚持到获救。为救活一些人，必须把某些人扔下船。为更大善选择谁死亡，这在道德上可接受吗？

One utilitarian approach would calculate based on future contributions: sacrifice the old and sick to save the young and healthy. But this treats humans as mere numbers and may violate principles of fairness.

一种功利主义方法会基于未来贡献计算：牺牲老弱病残以拯救年轻健康者。但这把人仅仅当作数字，并可能违反公平原则。

Another approach insists on random selection or that all share equally, even if none survive. This respects the equal worth of every person. What would you decide as captain?

另一种方法坚持随机选择或所有人平分物资，即使无人幸存。这尊重每个人的平等价值。作为船长，你会如何决定？

Remember to justify your reasoning with ethical theories and acknowledge the emotional weight of such dilemmas.

记住用伦理理论为你的推理辩护，并承认这类困境的情感分量。

---

9. Reflective Writing: My Philosophical Journey | 反思性写作：我的哲学之旅

After analysing several case studies, it is valuable to reflect on your own thinking. How have your views changed? Which ethical approach resonates with you, and why?

在分析了多个案例后，反思

Published by TutorHao | KS3 哲学 Revision Series | aleveler.com

更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）