Case Study Analysis: Hands-on Practice for Pre-U CIE Philosophy

📚 Case Study Analysis: Hands-on Practice for Pre-U CIE Philosophy | 案例分析实战演练

Case study analysis forms the backbone of applied ethics in the Cambridge Pre-U Philosophy examination. It requires you to move beyond abstract theorising and engage with complex, often messy, real-world situations. This article offers a practical, step-by-step guide filled with hands-on exercises, designed to sharpen your analytical skills and boost your confidence for the exam.

案例分析是剑桥 Pre-U 哲学考试中应用伦理学的基石。它要求你超越抽象的理论探讨，接触复杂且常常混乱的现实情境。本文提供了一份充满实战练习的分步实用指南，旨在磨砺你的分析能力，增强你的考试信心。

1. What is Case Study Analysis? | 什么是案例分析？

A case study in philosophy is a detailed examination of a particular scenario that raises moral questions. It requires you to identify the ethical dimensions, apply relevant philosophical theories, and construct a reasoned argument for a particular course of action.

哲学中的案例分析是对引发道德问题的特定情境进行详细审视。它要求你识别伦理维度，应用相关的哲学理论，并为某一行动方案构建有理有据的论证。

Unlike abstract essays, case study analysis demands contextual sensitivity. You must weigh the specific consequences, duties, and character implications woven into the narrative, rather than simply regurgitating textbook definitions.

与抽象论文不同，案例分析需要情境敏感性。你必须权衡叙事中编织的具体后果、义务和品格意涵，而不是简单地复述教科书定义。

2. Why Case Studies Matter in Pre-U Philosophy | 案例分析为何重要？

The Pre-U syllabus emphasises the application of knowledge, not just its recall. Case studies test your ability to think like a philosopher, bridging the gap between theory and practice. This is a high-order skill rewarded in the top mark bands.

Pre-U 大纲强调知识的应用，而不仅仅是记忆。案例研究检验你像哲学家一样思考的能力，架起了理论与实践的桥梁。这是高分段所奖励的高阶技能。

Moreover, engaging with dilemmas such as euthanasia, autonomous weapons, or genetic engineering prepares you for the kind of nuanced ethical reasoning demanded in university-level philosophy and beyond.

此外，接触安乐死、自主武器或基因工程等困境，能为你适应大学哲学及更高层次所需的细致伦理推理做好准备。

3. Decoding the Exam Requirements | 解读考试要求

In the CIE Pre-U Paper 2 and Paper 3, you may be presented with a stimulus passage containing a moral dilemma. You are expected to analyse the case, apply at least two ethical theories, and critically evaluate them to reach a justified conclusion.

在 CIE Pre-U 试卷二和试卷三中，你可能会遇到包含道德困境的引导性短文。你需要分析案例，应用至少两种伦理理论，并进行批判性评价，以得出合理的结论。

The mark scheme typically rewards clear identification of moral issues (AO1), accurate application of theory (AO1), and sustained critical evaluation comparing strengths and weaknesses of different approaches (AO2).

评分标准通常奖励清晰识别道德问题 (AO1)、准确应用理论 (AO1)，以及持续比较不同方法优劣的批判性评价 (AO2)。

4. A Systematic Approach to Analysis | 系统分析的方法

Begin by reading the case twice. On the first pass, list all the stakeholders and the potential harms or benefits to each. On the second pass, underline the key facts that carry moral weight – these are the ‘morally relevant features’.

从阅读案例两遍开始。第一遍，列出所有利益相关者以及各自可能遭受的伤害或获得的益处。第二遍，在具有道德分量的关键事实下划线——这些就是“道德相关特征”。

Next, formulate a central ethical question. For example, ‘Is it morally permissible to sacrifice one individual to save five?’ This question will anchor your entire analysis and keep your argument focused.

接着，提出一个核心伦理问题。例如，“牺牲一人以拯救五人，在道德上是允许的吗？”这个问题将锚定你的整个分析，并保持论证的聚焦。

5. Understanding the Core Ethical Theories | 理解核心伦理理论

You must be fluent in the three major normative theories. Utilitarianism judges actions by their consequences, aiming for the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Deontology focuses on duties and rules, such as the Kantian categorical imperative. Virtue ethics asks what a virtuous person would do, focusing on character.

你必须精通三大规范伦理学理论。功利主义以行为的后果来评判，旨在实现最大多数人的最大幸福。道义论关注义务和规则，例如康德的定言命令。美德伦理学则追问有德之人会怎么做，聚焦于品格。

Do not treat these as rigid templates. A sophisticated response acknowledges hybrid approaches or internal debates, such as the distinction between act- and rule-utilitarianism.

不要将这些视为僵化的模板。成熟的回答会承认混合方法或内部争论，例如行为功利主义与规则功利主义之间的区别。

6. Applying Utilitarianism | 应用功利主义

To apply utilitarianism, perform a ‘felicific calculus’. Estimate the pleasure and pain generated for every party affected by each possible action. Remember to consider intensity, duration, certainty, and extent of the effects.

要应用功利主义，需进行“幸福计算”。估算每种可能行为对每个受影响方所产生的快乐与痛苦。记得考虑影响的强度、持续时间、确定性和范围。

In a medical triage case, a utilitarian might argue that saving the young patient with a higher chance of survival produces more net happiness than saving an elderly patient with poor prognosis. However, you must critically examine whether this ignores the intrinsic value of each life.

在一个医疗分诊案例中，功利主义者可能会主张，拯救生存机会更大的年轻患者比救治预后差的老年患者能产生更多的净幸福。然而，你必须批判性地审视这是否忽视了每条生命的内在价值。

7. Applying Deontology | 应用道义论

Deontological analysis begins by identifying the maxim behind a proposed action. Can it be universalised without contradiction? Does the action treat any rational being merely as a means to an end?

道义论分析始于识别拟议行动背后的准则。它能否不自相矛盾地普遍化？该行动是否将任何理性存在者仅仅当作手段来对待？

Consider a case of lying to protect a friend. A Kantian would argue that lying is always wrong because the maxim ‘it is permissible to lie’ cannot be universalised without destroying the institution of truth-telling. This absolute stance often provides powerful critical leverage against consequentialist reasoning.

考虑一个为保护朋友而说谎的案例。康德主义者会论证说谎总是错的，因为“说谎是被允许的”这一准则不可普遍化，否则会摧毁诚实守信的制度。这种绝对立场常常提供了对抗后果论推理的有力批判杠杆。

8. Applying Virtue Ethics | 应用美德伦理学

Virtue ethics shifts the focus from the act to the agent. Ask what character traits are being developed or expressed by the decision. Would a courageous, compassionate, and wise person choose this path?

美德伦理学将焦点从行为转向行为者。问问这个决定发展或表达了哪些品格特征。一个勇敢、富有同情心且明智的人会选择这条路吗？

In a whistleblowing scenario, virtue ethics might praise the courage and integrity of the whistleblower, while also questioning whether the act was motivated by vindictiveness rather than justice. It captures the moral complexities of motivation that other theories often overlook.

在举报案例中，美德伦理学可能会赞扬举报人的勇气与正直，同时也会质疑该行为是出于报复而非正义。它捕捉到了其他理论经常忽视的动机的道德复杂性。

9. Constructing a Coherent Argument | 构建连贯的论证

Your response must have a clear structure: introduction, application of theory A, application of theory B, critical comparison, and a justified conclusion. Use signposting language such as ‘from a utilitarian perspective…’ and ‘in contrast, deontology would insist…’

你的回答必须有清晰的结构：引言、理论 A 的应用、理论 B 的应用、批判性比较，以及合理的结论。使用路标性语言，如“从功利主义的角度看……”和“相比之下，道义论会坚持……”。

The conclusion should not be a vague compromise. It must state precisely which theoretical approach provides a more convincing resolution for this specific case and why, backing it up with the strongest reasons discovered during your analysis.

结论不应是一个模糊的折中。它必须准确说明哪种理论方法为这个特定案例提供了更令人信服的解决方案及其原因，并辅以你在分析过程中发现的最有力理由。

10. Critical Evaluation of Responses | 对回答进行批判性评价

Critical evaluation involves probing the assumptions and implications of each theory. A utilitarian argument may rest on dubious predictions of future happiness. A deontological stance may lead to disastrous consequences for innocent people.

批判性评价涉及探究每种理论的假设和意涵。功利主义论证可能依赖于对未来幸福的可疑预测。道义论立场则可能给无辜者带来灾难性后果。

Use the case details to launch these critiques. Instead of saying ‘utilitarianism is too demanding’, say ‘in this case, the utilitarian demand to prioritise organ harvesting from one to save five unacceptably undermines the sanctity of the individual.’ This contextualised evaluation is what examiners reward.

利用案例细节来展开这些批判。不要说“功利主义要求过高”，而要说“在这个案例中，功利主义要求优先从一人身上摘取器官以拯救五人，这不可接受地损害了个体的神圣性。”这种情境化的评价正是考官所嘉许的。

11. Worked Example: Self-Driving Car Dilemma | 实战示例：自动驾驶汽车困境

Imagine an autonomous vehicle must ‘choose’ between swerving to hit one pedestrian or continuing straight to hit five. Apply utilitarianism: the calculation clearly favours saving the five, as it minimises overall harm.

设想一辆自动驾驶汽车必须在转向撞向一个行人还是继续直行撞向五个行人之间做出“选择”。应用功利主义：计算结果明显倾向于拯救五人，因为这样能将总体伤害降至最低。

Now apply Kantian ethics. Programming the car to intentionally sacrifice one innocent person uses that individual merely as a means to save others, violating the categorical imperative. The car should not actively choose to harm anyone, even if more lives are at stake.

现在应用康德伦理学。为汽车编写程序故意牺牲一个无辜者，这仅仅将那个人作为拯救他人的手段，违反了定言命令。汽车不应主动选择伤害任何人，哪怕有更多生命处于危险之中。

Evaluate: the deontological argument preserves human dignity but may be criticised for prioritising abstract principle over concrete welfare. This tension reveals the deep philosophical challenge of designing moral machines.

评价：道义论论证维护了人的尊严，但可能被批评为将抽象原则置于具体福祉之上。这种张力揭示了设计道德机器的深层哲学挑战。

12. Tips for Effective Practice and Revision | 有效练习与复习的技巧

Regularly practise with past paper cases under timed conditions. After writing, compare your response against the mark scheme and a model answer. Identify where your application could be more precise or your evaluation more incisive.

在限时条件下定期练习历年真题案例。写完后，将你的回答与评分标准和标准答案进行对比。找出你的应用可以更精确或你的评价可以更深刻的地方。

Create a ‘case study journal’ where you collect news articles involving ethical dilemmas (e.g., privacy vs. security, resource allocation) and draft bullet-point analyses using each theory. This habit transforms passive reading into active revision.

创建一本“案例日志”，收集涉及伦理困境的新闻文章（如隐私与安全、资源分配），并用每种理论起草要点分析。这一习惯能将被动阅读转化为主动复习。

Finally, discuss cases with peers. Articulating your reasoning out loud and defending it against counterarguments builds the mental agility and depth of understanding needed to excel in the Pre-U Philosophy exam.

最后，与同伴讨论案例。大声阐述你的推理并为其辩护以对抗反对论点，能培养思维的敏捷性和理解的深度，这是在 Pre-U 哲学考试中脱颖而出所必需的。

Published by TutorHao | Philosophy Revision Series | aleveler.com

更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）

Case Study Analysis: Hands-on Practice for Pre-U CIE Philosophy | 案例分析实战演练