Case Study Practice for Pre-U CCEA Philosophy | Pre-U CCEA 哲学：案例分析实战演练

📚 Case Study Practice for Pre-U CCEA Philosophy | Pre-U CCEA 哲学：案例分析实战演练

Case study questions in the Pre-U CCEA Philosophy examination are designed to test your ability to apply ethical theories to real-world scenarios. They require more than just a knowledge of the theories; you must demonstrate analytical skill, critical judgement, and the capacity to construct a balanced argument that acknowledges the complexity of moral dilemmas. This guide offers a structured approach to mastering case study analysis through focused practice.

在 Pre-U CCEA 哲学考试中，案例分析题旨在检验你将伦理理论应用于现实情境的能力。这不仅要求你了解相关理论，还需要展示分析技巧、批判性判断，以及在承认道德困境复杂性的同时构建平衡论证的能力。本指南通过有针对性的练习，为你提供掌握案例分析的结构化方法。

1. Why Case Studies Matter in CCEA Philosophy | 为什么案例分析在CCEA哲学中很重要

Case studies bridge the gap between abstract philosophical concepts and the messy, unpredictable nature of human life. In the CCEA specification, you are expected not merely to recite the principles of utilitarianism or Kantian ethics, but to use them as lenses through which to examine specific situations. This skill demonstrates genuine philosophical understanding and is often what distinguishes high-scoring candidates.

案例分析在抽象哲学概念与纷繁复杂的人类生活之间架起了桥梁。在 CCEA 考试大纲中，你不仅要能背诵功利主义或康德伦理学的原则，还要能将它们作为审视特定情境的视角。这项技能体现的是真正的哲学理解，也常常是高分考生的分水岭。

Practising with cases also trains you to identify the morally relevant features of a scenario, such as consequences, duties, intentions, and virtues. By repeatedly applying different ethical frameworks, you learn to spot tensions between them and to evaluate which approach offers the most convincing resolution in the context provided.

通过练习案例，你还能学会识别情境中与道德相关的特征，例如后果、义务、意图和美德。反复运用不同的伦理框架将帮助你发现它们之间的张力，并评估在给定语境下哪种方法能提供最有说服力的解决方案。

2. Deconstructing the Case Study Question | 解答案例分析题

Begin by reading the case study carefully, underlining key facts and the specific moral dilemma presented. Ask yourself: ‘What exactly is being asked?’ The question often expects you to apply one or more named theories, or to compare how different theories would judge the same action. Do not rush to judgement; instead, map out the stakeholders involved and the possible courses of action.

首先仔细阅读案例材料，划出关键事实和提出的具体道德困境。问自己：”问题究竟在问什么？”题目通常要求你运用一个或多个指定的理论，或者比较不同理论对同一行为的评判。不要急于下结论；先梳理出所涉及的利益相关方以及可能采取的行动方案。

Create a quick outline: identify the central moral problem, list the relevant facts, and note down the principles from the ethical theory you intend to apply. This planning stage will prevent you from writing a disorganised response and will ensure that your argument flows logically from premise to conclusion.

快速列一个提纲：确定核心道德问题，列出相关事实，并记下你打算运用的伦理理论的原则。这一规划阶段能避免你写出杂乱无章的答案，并确保你的论证从前提合乎逻辑地推进到结论。

3. Utilitarianism: The Greatest Happiness Principle | 功利主义：最大幸福原则

Classical utilitarianism, as developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, holds that the morally right action is the one that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number. In its act-utilitarian form, each individual action is evaluated by its consequences. The ‘hedonic calculus’ weighs factors such as intensity, duration, certainty, and extent of pleasure or pain.

由杰里米·边沁和约翰·斯图亚特·密尔发展的古典功利主义认为，道德上正确的行为是能为最大多数人带来最大幸福的行为。在行为功利主义的形式下，每一个单独的行为都根据其后果来评价。”快乐计算法”则对诸如快乐的强度、持续时间、确定性、范围等因素进行权衡。

“The greatest good for the greatest number.”

Mill introduced a qualitative distinction between higher and lower pleasures, arguing that intellectual and moral pleasures are superior to mere bodily gratification. This refinement helps utilitarianism respond to the objection that it is a ‘doctrine worthy of swine’ by recognising the value of human dignity and culture.

密尔引入了高级快乐和低级快乐的质的区分，主张理智和道德的快乐优于单纯的肉体满足。这一改进有助于功利主义回应那种认为它是”猪的学说”的批评，因为它承认了人的尊严和文化的价值。

4. Applying Utilitarianism to a Classic Dilemma | 将功利主义应用于经典困境

Consider the famous Trolley Problem: 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, but doing so will kill one person tied there. From a utilitarian perspective, the calculus seems straightforward: sacrificing one to save five maximises overall welfare. The certainty and extent of the predicted outcomes strongly favour pulling the lever.

思考著名的电车难题：一辆失控的电车正冲向五名被绑在轨道上的人。你可以扳动拉杆让电车转向侧轨，但这样做会撞死侧轨上被绑的一个人。从功利主义视角看，计算似乎很简单：牺牲一人拯救五人能最大化总体福祉。所预测结果的确定性与范围强烈支持扳动拉杆。

However, a sophisticated utilitarian analysis must also consider the long-term consequences. Would allowing such a direct killing, even to save more lives, erode societal trust and create a rule that permits killing the innocent? Rule utilitarianism would ask whether a general rule that permits sacrificing one for many would, if universally adopted, lead to greater overall happiness. This highlights the tension between act- and rule-utilitarianism within the case.

然而，深入的功利主义分析还必须考虑长远后果。允许这种直接的杀害——即便为了拯救更多生命——是否会侵蚀社会信任，并形成一条允许杀害无辜者的规则？规则功利主义则会问，如果一条允许为多数人牺牲少数人的规则被普遍采纳，是否会导致更大的总体幸福。这凸显了在该案例中行为功利主义与规则功利主义之间的张力。

5. Kantian Ethics: The Categorical Imperative | 康德伦理学：绝对命令

Immanuel Kant’s deontological ethics centres on the concept of duty and the categorical imperative. An action is morally good only if it is done from duty, not merely in accordance with duty, and if its maxim can be willed as a universal law. This places absolute value on rationality and the intention behind an action, rejecting consequences as the basis for moral worth.

康德的义务论伦理学以责任和绝对命令的概念为核心。一个行为只有当出于责任，而非仅仅合乎责任，且其准则能够被意愿为一条普遍法则时，才具有道德价值。这赋予了理性和行为背后的意图以绝对价值，拒绝将后果作为道德价值的依据。

“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”

The second formulation, the Formula of Humanity, requires that we treat humanity, whether in our own person or in that of another, always as an end and never merely as a means. This principle forbids using people as mere tools to achieve a goal, even a noble one, thereby safeguarding individual dignity.

第二条表述，即人性公式，要求我们始终将人——无论是我们自己还是他人人格中的人性——作为目的，而绝不仅仅作为手段来对待。这一原则禁止将人仅仅用作实现某个目标的工具，即使目标十分崇高，从而捍卫了个体尊严。

6. Applying Kantian Ethics: The Inquiring Murderer | 应用康德伦理学：寻凶者之问

Imagine a murderer comes to your door asking whether his intended victim is hiding in your house. You know your friend is inside. Kant’s ethics would forbid lying: if you universalise the maxim ‘It is permissible to lie to protect someone from harm’, the very institution of truth-telling would collapse. Moreover, the lie would be using the murderer as a mere means to your goal of protecting your friend, violating his rational autonomy.

设想一名杀人犯来到你家门口，询问他想要杀害的人是否藏在你家中。你知道你的朋友就在屋内。康德的伦理学禁止说谎：如果你将”为了保护某人免受伤害而说谎是允许的”这一准则普遍化，那么整个诚实守信的体系就会崩溃。此外，这个谎言是将杀人犯仅仅作为你保护朋友这一目标的手段，从而侵犯了他的理性自主性。

However, a Kantian might argue that there is a difference between lying and making a misleading but technically true statement. Alternatively, one could refuse to answer, thereby not violating the perfect duty not to lie. This case vividly tests the rigor of Kantian absolutism and invites you to discuss whether the categorical imperative can accommodate our intuition that saving an innocent life outweighs the wrongness of deception.

然而，康德主义者可能会争辩说，说谎与做出误导性但在技术上属实的陈述是有区别的。或者，你可以拒绝回答，从而不违反不说谎的完全义务。这个案例生动地检验了康德绝对主义的严格性，并让你去讨论绝对命令能否容纳我们这样的直觉：拯救无辜生命胜过欺骗的错误。

7. Virtue Ethics: Character and Flourishing | 美德伦理学：品格与繁荣

Virtue ethics, rooted in the work of Aristotle, shifts the focus from individual actions and their consequences to the character of the moral agent. The central question is not ‘What should I do?’ but ‘What kind of person should I be?’ A virtuous act is one that a person with practical wisdom (phronesis) would perform, based on the cultivation of virtues such as courage, honesty, compassion, and justice, which lie at the mean between extremes.

美德伦理学植根于亚里士多德的著作，它将关注的焦点从具体行为及其后果转向道德主体的品格。核心问题不是”我应该做什么”，而是”我应该成为什么样的人？”一个有德性的行为，是一个拥有实践智慧（phronesis）的人基于勇气、诚实、同情、正义等品德的培养而做出的行为，这些品德处于极端之间的中道。

The ultimate goal is eudaimonia – a state of flourishing or living well and doing well. Unlike utilitarianism’s consequentialism and Kant’s deontology, virtue ethics does not provide a decision-making algorithm; instead, it requires sensitivity to context and a cultivated moral perception that recognises the ethically salient features of a situation.

其终极目标是 eudaimonia——一种繁荣昌盛或活得好、做得好的人生状态。与功利主义的结果论和康德的义务论不同，美德伦理学不提供一套决策算法；它要求对环境保持敏感，并具备一种能辨识情境中伦理显著特征的、经过培养的道德感知力。

8. Applying Virtue Ethics: The Honest Merchant | 应用美德伦理学：诚实的商人

Consider a shopkeeper who gives a customer the correct change not because she fears being caught or wants a good reputation, but because honesty is a settled disposition of her character. According to Aristotle, this act has moral worth because it flows from a firm and unchangeable character state. The virtuous agent takes pleasure in doing the honest thing itself.

思考这样一个店主，她给顾客找了正确的零钱，不是因为她害怕被发现或想要好名声，而是因为诚实是她品性中一种稳固的倾向。根据亚里士多德，这个行为具有道德价值，因为它源自一种坚定且不变的品质状态。有德之人会从践行诚实这一行为本身获得快乐。

If the same shopkeeper were faced with the opportunity to vastly overcharge a vulnerable customer, a virtue ethicist would ask what a compassionate and just person would do. The answer would not be derived from a utility calculation or an abstract rule, but from an ideal of noble character. The limitation for exam purposes is that virtue ethics can appear vague, offering guidance only to those who are already virtuous.

如果同一个店主面临向一位弱势顾客狠狠敲竹杠的机会，美德伦理学家会问：一个有同情心和正义感的人会怎么做？答案不会来自功利计算或抽象规则，而是来自一个高尚品格的理想。在考试中，美德伦理学的局限在于它可能显得模糊不清，只对那些已经具备美德的人提供指导。

9. Situation Ethics: Agape and Relativism | 情境伦理学：圣爱与相对主义

Developed by Joseph Fletcher, situation ethics proposes that the only absolute principle is Christian love, or agape. Love is the sole criterion for moral judgement, and the end justifies the means, provided that the means are consistent with the loving end. Fletcher argued against both legalistic ethics and antinomianism, advocating a middle way where rules are useful illuminators but may be set aside if love demands it.

由约瑟夫·弗莱彻发展的情境伦理学提出，唯一绝对的原则是基督教的圣爱（agape）。爱是道德判断的唯一标准，只要手段与爱的目的相符，目的就可以为手段辩护。弗莱彻同时反对律法主义伦理和反律法主义，主张一条中间道路，即规则是有用的指明灯，但如果爱有要求，就可以将其搁置一旁。

Fletcher’s system is built on four working principles: pragmatism, relativism, positivism, and personalism. It insists that moral decisions be grounded in the concrete situation, treating persons, not laws or principles, as the paramount concern. This radical contextualisation makes situation ethics highly adaptable but also prone to the charge of subjectivity.

弗莱彻的体系建立在四个实用原则之上：实用主义、相对主义、实证主义和个人至上主义。它坚持道德决定必须根植于具体情境，把人，而不是法律或原则，作为最首要的关切。这种彻底的处境化使得情境伦理学极具适应性，但也容易受到主观性过强的指责。

10. Applying Situation Ethics: The Case of the Desperate Husband | 应用情境伦理学：绝望的丈夫案例

Imagine a husband whose wife is dying from a rare disease. The only pharmacist who stocks the life-saving drug demands an exorbitant price that the husband cannot afford. After every legitimate effort has failed, the husband breaks into the pharmacy and steals the drug. Using situation ethics, one would ask: ‘What does love require here?’ If the motivation is agapic love for the wife, and no less loving alternative exists, the action could be deemed morally right, despite breaking the law.

想象一位丈夫的妻子正因一种罕见疾病而垂危。唯一备有救命药的药剂师开出了丈夫无力承担的天价。在所有合法努力都失败之后，丈夫闯进药房偷走了药品。运用情境伦理学，人们会问：”在此情此境下，爱要求做什么？”如果动机是对妻子的圣爱，且不存在其他更少阻碍爱的选择，那么该行为即使违法，也可能被视为道德上正确的。

This case exemplifies Fletcher’s willingness to place personal need above societal rules when love is served. However, critics warn that it opens the door to moral chaos because individuals can justify almost any action by claiming a loving intention. A strong analysis would contrast this approach with Kant’s refusal to steal under any circumstances and the utilitarian’s calculation of overall harm versus benefit.

这个案例体现了弗莱彻在服务于爱的前提下，愿意将个人需要置于社会规则之上。然而批评者警告说，这为道德混乱打开了大门，因为个体几乎可以以爱的意图为由为任何行为辩护。强有力的分析应将这种进路与康德在任何情况下都拒绝偷窃的立场，以及功利主义对总体伤害与利益的计算相对比。

11. Comparing the Approaches: Strengths and Weaknesses | 比较各方法：优势与不足

A consistent theme in CCEA mark schemes is the ability to evaluate the relative merits of ethical theories. The table below summarises key strengths and weaknesses, but your answer should develop these in the context of the given case.

CCEA 评分标准中一个持续的主题，是能够评价各伦理理论的相对优劣。下表总结了关键的优势与不足，但你的答案应结合给定案例的情境来展开这些点。

Utilitarianism: Strength – provides a clear, impartial decision-making procedure based on measurable welfare. Weakness – can justify injustice towards minorities if the aggregate benefits are large enough.
功利主义：优势——提供了基于可衡量福利的清晰、公正的决策程序。劣势——如果总收益足够大，可能会为对少数人的不公正辩护。
Kantian Ethics: Strength – upholds absolute human dignity and protects individuals from being used as mere tools. Weakness – its rigour can lead to counterintuitive outcomes in tragic dilemmas, like forbidding a lie even to save a life.
康德伦理学：优势——维护绝对的人类尊严，保护个体不被当作纯粹的工具。劣势——其严格性可能在悲剧性困境中导致反直觉的结论，比如即使为了救命也禁止说谎。
Virtue Ethics: Strength – accounts for the complexity and developmental nature of moral life, emphasising the type of person we should become. Weakness – lacks specific action-guidance in pressing, high-stakes situations.
美德伦理学：优势——解释了道德生活的复杂性和发展性，强调我们应成为何种人。劣势——在紧迫、高风险的境况下缺乏具体的行动指导。
Situation Ethics: Strength – flexible and deeply compassionate, prioritising human need over rigid law. Weakness – highly subjective and potentially undermines the consistency required for a functioning society.
情境伦理学：优势——灵活且富有深刻的同情心，将人的需要置于僵化的律法之上。劣势——高度主观，可能破坏社会运作所需的一致性。

12. Structuring Your Exam Answer | 构建你的考试答案结构

Your response should follow a clear, logical framework. Start with a concise introduction that identifies the central moral problem and states which ethical theory, or theories, you will use. Avoid ‘fence-sitting’ but acknowledge complexity. Each body paragraph should apply one principle to the case, using the PEEL method: Point, Evidence from the case, Explanation of the theory, and Link back to the question.

你的答案应遵循一个清晰、有逻辑的框架。以简洁的引言开头，点明核心道德问题，并说明你将使用哪一种或哪几种伦理理论。避免”骑墙”但应承认复杂性。每个主体段落应将一个原则应用于案例，使用 PEEL 方法：观点、案例材料中的证据、理论阐释、回扣问题。

After presenting a theory’s perspective, evaluate it critically: highlight a weakness, consider a counterargument, or compare it with another approach. Conclude by synthesising your discussion, offering a reasoned judgement on the most ethically defensible course of action. Even if you do not reach a final verdict, make sure your evaluative reasoning is clear.

在陈述某个理论的视角之后，要对其进行批判性评价：指出一个弱点，考虑一个反驳，或将其与另一种进路相比较。最后总结你的讨论，对最有伦理辩护余地的行动方案给出有理有据的评判。即使你没有得出最终定论，也务必确保评析推理是清晰的。

13. Final Tips for High Marks | 高分诀窍

Practice regularly with past-paper case studies and self-constructed scenarios. Time management is critical: allocate a set amount of time for planning, writing, and reviewing. Use philosophical terminology accurately but explain it – demonstrating that you understand the terms, not merely that you can recall them.

定期用真题案例和自己构建的情境进行练习。时间管理至关重要：为规划、撰写和检查分配好固定时间。准确使用哲学术语，但要对之进行解释——展示你理解这些术语，而不仅仅是能回忆起来。

Always relate abstract reasoning back to the concrete details of the case. The highest marks go to candidates who integrate theory and practice seamlessly, showing both a mastery of ethical content and a sensitive, analytical mind. Read examiner reports and model answers to internalise what examiners reward, and refine your technique accordingly.

始终将抽象推理与案例的具体细节联系起来。最高分属于那些能将理论与实践无缝结合的考生，他们既展示了对伦理内容的精通，也体现出敏感而善于分析的头脑。阅读考官报告和范文，内化考官所奖励的内容，并相应打磨你的技巧。

Published by TutorHao | Philosophy Revision Series | aleveler.com

更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）

Case Study Practice for Pre-U CCEA Philosophy | Pre-U CCEA 哲学：案例分析实战演练