📚 Case Study Drill for IGCSE WJEC Philosophy | IGCSE WJEC 哲学案例分析实战演练
Case study questions are a core part of the IGCSE WJEC Philosophy assessment. They ask you to apply ethical theories to real-world scenarios, evaluate different views, and reach a justified conclusion. This drill walks you through a worked example and gives you a repeatable method for any case you meet in the exam.
案例分析题是 IGCSE WJEC 哲学考试的核心部分。这类题目要求你把伦理理论应用到现实情境中，评价不同观点，并得出有理有据的结论。本次实战演练将带你完成一个范例分析，并给你一套可以重复使用的方法，应对考试中遇到的任何案例。
1. Understanding the Exam Command Words | 理解考试指令词
Before analysing any case, you need to know what the question is really asking. In WJEC Philosophy, common command words include ‘describe’, ‘explain’, ‘evaluate’ and ‘discuss’. A ‘describe’ question wants accurate factual knowledge, while an ‘evaluate’ question expects a balanced judgement with reasons.
在分析任何案例之前，你需要知道题目真正要求什么。在 WJEC 哲学中，常见的指令词包括 ‘describe’、’explain’、’evaluate’ 和 ‘discuss’。’Describe’ 题要求准确的陈述性知识，而 ‘evaluate’ 题则期待带有理由的平衡判断。
In a case study task, the command word is usually ‘evaluate’ or ‘discuss’. This means you should not simply describe a theory. You must apply it to the case, compare it with another view, and say which approach is stronger and why.
在案例分析任务中，指令词通常是 ‘evaluate’ 或 ‘discuss’。这意味着你不能只是描述某个理论。你必须把理论应用到案例中，与另一观点进行比较，并说明哪种进路更强以及原因。
2. Building a Repeatable Case Study Template | 构建可重复使用的案例分析模板
A strong case study answer follows a clear structure: introduce the moral issue, state the first theory, apply it to the case, state the second theory, apply it, then compare and conclude. This prevents you from drifting into description or unsupported opinion.
一份出色的案例分析答案遵循清晰的结构：提出道德问题，陈述第一种理论，将其应用于案例，陈述第二种理论，再应用，然后进行比较并得出结论。这样可以避免你偏离到描述或无依据的观点上。
Use this five-step template: (1) identify the ethical question, (2) explain how Theory A judges the action, (3) explain how Theory B judges the action, (4) evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each in this case, and (5) make a justified final judgement.
使用这个五步模板：（1）识别伦理问题，（2）解释理论 A 如何判断该行为，（3）解释理论 B 如何判断该行为，（4）在此案例中评价每种理论的优点与不足，（5）作出有依据的最终判断。
3. Case Study: The Trolley Problem Revisited | 案例分析：重访电车难题
Let us work with a modified trolley case. A runaway tram is heading towards five workmen on the track. You are standing next to a lever. If you pull the lever, the tram will divert onto a side track where one worker is standing, killing that one worker but saving five. Do you pull the lever?
让我们一起来分析一个改编版电车案例。一辆失控的电车正驶向主轨道上的五名工人。你站在一个拉杆旁。如果拉动拉杆，电车将转向侧轨，撞死侧轨上的一名工人，但能救下五人。你会拉动拉杆吗？
This case is useful because it forces a conflict between outcomes and rules. Utilitarian reasoning focuses on the number of lives saved, while deontological reasoning asks whether using one person as a means is ever acceptable. Your task is to explain and evaluate both responses.
这个案例很有用，因为它迫使结果与规则之间产生冲突。功利主义推理关注被拯救的生命数量，而义务论推理则追问把一个人当作手段是否可以被接受。你的任务是解释并评价这两种回应。
4. Applying Utilitarianism | 运用功利主义
Act utilitarianism, associated with Jeremy Bentham, says the right action is the one that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number. In this case, pulling the lever saves five lives and loses one, so a utilitarian would calculate that pulling the lever produces more net happiness and is therefore morally right.
行为功利主义与杰里米·边沁相关，它认为正确的行为就是为最大多数人带来最大幸福的行为。在此案例中，拉动拉杆拯救五条生命、失去一条生命，因此功利主义者会计算认为拉动拉杆产生更多净幸福，因而在道德上是正确的。
However, there are problems. Critics say utilitarianism ignores the rights of the minority, because the one worker on the side track has not consented to be sacrificed. It also demands that we accurately predict consequences, but in real life we may not know all outcomes.
然而，这种观点也有问题。批评者认为功利主义忽视了少数人的权利，因为侧轨上的那名工人并未同意被牺牲。它还要求我们准确预测后果，但在现实生活中我们可能无法知道所有结果。
5. Applying Kantian Deontology | 运用康德义务论
Kantian ethics argues that moral actions must be based on duty and universalisable rules, not on consequences. Kant’s second formulation says we should never treat a person merely as a means to an end. Pulling the lever seems to use the one worker as a means to save five others, so a strict Kantian would likely say pulling the lever is wrong.
康德伦理学认为，道德行为必须基于义务和可普遍化的规则，而不是后果。康德的第二公式说，我们绝不应该仅仅把人当作达成目的的手段。拉动拉杆似乎是把那一名工人当作拯救其他五人的手段，因此严格的康德主义者很可能会说拉动拉杆是错误的。
Yet, a Kantian could argue that if a rule such as ‘divert danger to minimise loss of life’ can be universally willed, the action might be permissible. The key point is that Kant focuses on intention and respect for persons, not on the five-versus-one calculation.
不过，康德主义者也可以主张，如果 ‘把危险转移以最小化生命损失’ 这条规则能够被普遍意愿，那么该行为也许是可允许的。关键在于康德关注的是意图和对人的尊重，而不是五对一的计算。
6. Applying Situation Ethics | 运用情境伦理
Joseph Fletcher’s situation ethics holds that the only absolute rule is agape, or selfless love. The right action is the one that best serves love in the situation. In the trolley case, a situation ethicist would ask which choice is the most loving for all people involved.
约瑟夫·弗莱彻的情境伦理认为，唯一绝对的规则是 agape，即无私的爱。正确的行为是在具体情境中最能服务于爱的那个选择。在电车案例中，情境伦理主义者会问哪个选择对所有人而言最有爱心。
Because saving five lives rather than one could be seen as the more loving outcome, situation ethics might permit pulling the lever. However, this theory has been criticised for being too subjective, because different people may disagree about what the most loving action is.
由于拯救五条生命而非一条可被视为更有爱心的结果，情境伦理可能允许拉动拉杆。然而，这一理论被批评过于主观，因为不同的人可能对什么是最有爱心的行为存在分歧。
7. Applying Natural Law | 运用自然法
Natural law, drawn from Thomas Aquinas, says that human actions must be ordered towards their natural purpose and preserve basic goods such as life. The primary precept ‘preserve life’ would seem to forbid intentionally killing an innocent person, even to save others.
自然法源自托马斯·阿奎那，它认为人类行为必须朝向其自然目的，并保存生命等基本善。’保存生命’ 这一首要诫命似乎会禁止故意杀死一个无辜的人，即使是为了拯救他人。
In the trolley case, natural law might distinguish between intended and foreseen effects. If the one death is a side effect of saving five, rather than the direct intention, the action might be more defensible under the doctrine of double effect. This distinction is valuable for high-level evaluation.
在电车案例中，自然法也许区分意图效果与预见效果。如果那一个人的死亡是拯救五人的附带效果，而非直接意图，那么根据双重效果原则，该行为可能更有辩护空间。这种区分对高水平评价很有价值。
8. Comparing Secular and Religious Approaches | 比较世俗与宗教进路
WJEC Philosophy often expects you to compare secular and religious ethical systems. Utilitarianism and Kantian deontology are secular, because they do not rely on God or scripture. Situation ethics and natural law can be religious, though Fletcher and some natural lawyers offer non-religious versions.
WJEC 哲学常常期待你比较世俗与宗教的伦理体系。功利主义和康德义务论是世俗的，因为它们不依赖上帝或经文。情境伦理和自然法可以是宗教性的，尽管弗莱彻和一些自然法学者也提供非宗教版本。
When evaluating a case, note that religious systems often place absolute value on human life and intention, while secular systems may allow trade-offs based on outcomes. Showing awareness of this contrast can raise your answer to the top band.
在评价案例时，请注意宗教体系通常把人的生命和意图赋予绝对价值，而世俗体系可能允许基于结果的权衡。展示对这一对比的意识可以把你的答案提升到最高分数段。
9. Crafting a Balanced Evaluation | 撰写平衡评价
The evaluation paragraph is where many candidates lose marks. Do not simply say ‘utilitarianism is better’. Instead, weigh one theory against the other using the case details. For example, utilitarianism gives a clear decision but may ignore individual rights; Kant protects rights but may seem cold and impractical.
评价段落是许多考生失分的地方。不要简单地说 ‘功利主义更好’。相反，要利用案例细节权衡一种理论与另一种理论。例如，功利主义给出了明确决定，但可能忽视个人权利；康德保护权利，但可能显得冷漠且不切实际。
End with a justified conclusion: ‘In this specific case, I judge that pulling the lever is permissible because…’ or ‘I judge it is wrong because…’ Your conclusion must follow from the arguments you have already made, not appear as a new claim.
Published by TutorHao | IGCSE 哲学 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Cancel reply