📚 Year 12 WJEC Philosophy: Case Study Practical Exercises | Year 12 WJEC 哲学：案例分析实战演练
Success in WJEC AS Philosophy requires more than memorising arguments — you must learn to apply them to unfamiliar scenarios. This guide presents eight detailed case studies linked to the core themes of epistemology, philosophy of religion, and moral philosophy. For each case, you will see how to identify the philosophical issue, connect relevant theories, and craft a balanced evaluation. Use these exercises to sharpen your analytical skills and build confidence for the exam.
要在 WJEC AS 哲学考试中取得好成绩，光记住论证是不够的——你必须学会将其应用到不熟悉的情境中。本指南呈现了八个与认识论、宗教哲学和道德哲学核心主题紧密相关的详细案例。针对每个案例，你都会看到如何识别哲学问题、关联相关理论并构建平衡的评估。利用这些练习来磨砺你的分析能力，为考试建立信心。
1. What Is a Case Study in WJEC Philosophy? | 什么是 WJEC 哲学中的案例分析？
A case study in WJEC Philosophy is a short narrative or thought experiment that raises a philosophical problem. Your task is not to summarise the story but to use it as a springboard for philosophical analysis: name the issue, apply a relevant theory or argument, and then critically evaluate that theory in light of the case. This mirrors the demands of Part B questions, where AO2 (evaluation) carries half of the marks.
WJEC 哲学中的案例分析是一个简短的叙述或思想实验，它引发了一个哲学问题。你的任务不是复述故事，而是将其作为哲学分析的跳板：指出问题所在，应用相关的理论或论证，然后结合案例对该理论进行批判性评估。这反映了试卷 B 部分的要求，其中 AO2（评价）占总分的一半。
Every case study should be approached with three questions: (1) What is the conceptual tension here? (2) Which philosopher's toolkit helps me explore it? (3) What are the strongest objections to that toolkit when tested against this specific scenario? Keeping this structure in mind will prevent you from lapsing into storytelling.
每个案例分析都应带着三个问题去处理：(1) 这里的概念张力是什么？(2) 哪一位哲学家的工具箱能帮助我探究它？(3) 当用这个具体场景检验时，对该工具箱最有力的反驳是什么？牢记这个结构能防止你滑向单纯叙述故事。
2. How to Analyse a Philosophical Case Step by Step | 如何分步分析哲学案例
Begin by writing a single sentence that identifies the philosophical problem. For example, 'This case questions whether observed design in nature justifies belief in a designer.' Then select one core argument from the syllabus — such as Paley's design argument, the logical problem of evil, Bentham's hedonic calculus, or Descartes' evil demon. Outline the argument's key moves, always tying them back to the details of the case. Finally, launch an evaluation: does the case support the argument, weaken it, or expose a hidden assumption? Aim for two well-developed evaluative points.
首先用一句话点明哲学问题。例如，“该案例质疑了自然中观察到的设计是否能为相信设计者存在提供辩护。”然后从大纲中选择一个核心论证——如佩利的设计论证、恶的逻辑问题、边沁的快乐计算法或笛卡尔的恶魔论证。概述该论证的关键步骤，始终将其与案例细节挂钩。最后展开评价：案例是支持该论证、削弱它，还是暴露了一个隐藏的假设？力求写出两个充分展开的评价观点。
Throughout the exam, use phrases like 'applied to this case...', 'the scenario challenges the premise that...', and 'a defender might reply...'. This signals to the examiner that you are doing philosophy rather than recalling notes. Practise the structure with the eight cases below, each of which targets a different area of the WJEC specification.
在考试中全程使用诸如“应用于本案例……”、“该情境挑战了……的前提”、“辩护者可能会回应……”等表述。这向考官表明你是在做哲学，而非默写笔记。用下面的八个案例练习这一结构，每个案例都针对 WJEC 大纲的不同领域。
3. Case 1: Paley's Watchmaker and the Evolution Objection | 案例一：佩利的钟表匠与进化论反驳
Imagine you find a pocket watch on a heath. Its intricate gears and purposeful arrangement, Paley argues, compel you to infer a watchmaker. By analogy, the eye, the wing, or the bacterial flagellum display even greater complexity and therefore point to a divine designer. The case here is a fossil-rich rock face that shows a gradual transition of species over millions of years. How does this scenario interact with Paley's analogy?
想象你在荒原上发现一只怀表。佩利论证说，其精密的齿轮和目的性布局迫使你推断有一位钟表匠存在。以此类推，眼睛、翅膀或细菌鞭毛展现出更高的复杂性，因而指向一位神圣的设计者。这里的案例是一面富含化石的岩壁，展示了几百万年间物种渐进的变迁。这个场景如何与佩利的类比相互影响？
The fossil record introduces Hume's alternative explanation: apparent design may arise through blind natural processes operating over vast time scales. This does not directly disprove the existence of a designer, but it offers a competing naturalistic account that reduces the explanatory power of the design argument. A student would apply Paley's inference to the best explanation and then test whether 'God' remains the best explanation when natural selection is on the table.
化石记录引入了休谟的替代解释：表面的设计可能源自漫长时间尺度上的盲目自然过程。这并未直接证伪设计者的存在，但提供了一种与之竞争的自然主义解释，从而削弱了设计论证的解释力。学生可以运用佩利的最佳解释推理，然后检验当自然选择也被纳入考虑时，“上帝”是否仍然是最佳解释。
For evaluation, consider whether evolution really explains the origin of the first self-replicating life or the fine-tuning of physical constants. These are gaps where a theist might still insert a designer. A strong answer will recognise that while the evolutionary objection weakens Paley's original analogy, it does not settle the debate over ultimate origins.
评价时要考虑进化论是否真的解释了第一批自我复制生命的起源或物理常数的精密调谐。在这些裂缝中，有神论者仍可能插入一位设计者。一份出色的回答会承认，虽然进化论反驳削弱了佩利的原始类比，但它并未一锤定音地解决终极起源之争。
4. Case 2: The Lisbon Earthquake and the Logical Problem of Evil | 案例二：里斯本地震与恶的逻辑问题
On 1 November 1755, a massive earthquake struck Lisbon, destroying churches and killing tens of thousands of worshippers gathered for All Saints' Day. This event became a focal point for Enlightenment critiques of theism. The case asks: if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and supremely good, why would such pointless suffering occur? Frame this using Mackie's inconsistent triad: the existence of evil appears logically incompatible with the existence of the God of classical theism.
1755 年 11 月 1 日，一场大地震袭击了里斯本，摧毁了众多教堂，夺走了数万名聚集起来庆祝万圣节的礼拜者的生命。这一事件成为启蒙运动批判有神论的焦点。该案例追问：如果上帝全能、全知且至善，为何会有如此无谓的苦难发生？请用麦基的不一致三元组来构建：恶的存在似乎与古典有神论的上帝在逻辑上不相容。
A candidate can first explain how the event seems to embody both moral evil (inadequate building practices allowed to persist) and natural evil (the geological violence itself). The challenge is to show why the free will defence, commonly raised against moral evil, struggles to account for the suffering of infants and non-human animals. In the Lisbon case, many victims had no opportunity to exercise free will in response to the disaster.
考生可以先解释该事件如何同时体现了道德恶（未被纠正的拙劣建筑实践）和自然恶（地质运动本身的暴烈）。挑战在于说明为何常用于应对道德恶的自由意志辩护，却难以解释婴儿和非人类动物的痛苦。在里斯本案例中，许多遇害者根本没有机会对灾难行使自由意志。
Plantinga's response — that it is logically possible that every evil is tied to a greater good we cannot see — offers a defence of logical consistency, but it may feel unsatisfactory when faced with concrete historical horror. A high-level evaluation will note that the Lisbon earthquake is often used to press the evidential problem of evil (the sheer quantity and distribution of suffering), which poses a different kind of threat than the bare logical problem.
普兰丁格的回应——逻辑上可能每一种恶都与我们无法察觉的更伟大的善相连——提供了一种对逻辑一致性的辩护，但当面对具体的历史惨剧时，它可能令人感到不满。高水平的评价会指出，里斯本地震常被用来强调恶的证据问题（苦难的数量和分布之巨），它所构成的威胁有别于单纯的逻辑问题。
5. Case 3: The Trolley Problem — Utilitarianism vs. Deontology | 案例三：电车难题——功利主义与义务论
A runaway trolley is heading toward five people tied to the track. You can pull a lever to divert it onto a side track where one person is tied. Should you pull the lever? This famous case pits Bentham's act utilitarianism ('maximise overall happiness') against Kant's categorical imperative ('never treat a person merely as a means'). Apply both theories and then evaluate which yields the more intuitively acceptable conclusion.
一辆失控的电车正冲向被绑在轨道上的五个人。你可以扳动道岔，将电车引向侧轨，那里绑着一个人。你应该扳动道岔吗？这个著名案例让边沁的行为功利主义（“实现最大多数人的最大幸福”）与康德的绝对命令（“永远不能将人仅仅当作手段”）正面交锋。请运用两种理论，然后评价哪一个能得出直觉上更可接受的结论。
A utilitarian calculation is straightforward: saving five lives produces a net gain in utility compared to saving one. Pulling the lever is not only permissible but obligatory. A Kantian, however, would ask whether the maxim 'I will sacrifice an innocent person to save a greater number' could be universalised without contradiction. If everyone followed that maxim, trust in moral rules would collapse, and the one person on the side track is being used merely as a means to save the five.
功利主义的计算直截了当：拯救五条生命相较于拯救一条生命产生了净效用的增益。扳动道岔不仅是许可的，而且是义务性的。然而，一位康德主义者会追问，“我将牺牲一个无辜者以拯救更多人”这一准则能否毫无矛盾地普遍化。如果人人都遵循这一准则，对道德规则的信任就会崩塌，而且侧轨上的人仅仅被当作了拯救五人的工具。
Now deepen the analysis: what if the scenario is changed so that you must push a large man off a footbridge to stop the trolley? Most people find this unacceptable, challenging the utilitarian's commitment to numbers alone. This variation helps you discuss the importance of proximity, bodily integrity, and the doing-allowing distinction, all of which are central evaluative topics in WJEC moral philosophy essays.
现在深化分析：如果情境改为你必须将一个大块头男人从天桥上推下以逼停电车呢？大多数人会觉得这难以接受，从而挑战了功利主义唯数字论的承诺。这个变体有助于你讨论接近性、身体完整性和作为与放任的区别，这些都是 WJEC 道德哲学论文中的核心评价主题。
6. Case 4: Thomson's Violinist and Abortion | 案例四：汤姆逊的小提琴家与堕胎
Judith Thomson asks you to imagine waking up to find that a famous violinist has been plugged into your kidneys without your consent. If you disconnect him, he will die; if you remain attached for nine months, he will recover and live a full life. Are you morally obliged to remain attached? The case is designed to test the claim that the right to life always outweighs the right to bodily autonomy, even if the foetus is granted full personhood.
朱迪斯·汤姆逊请你想象，醒来时发现一位著名小提琴家在未经你同意的情况下被接入你的肾脏。如果你断开连接，他就会死；如果你维持连接九个月，他将康复并过上完整的生活。你在道德上有义务保持连接吗？该案例旨在检验这一主张：即便胎儿被赋予完整的人格地位，生命权也总是高于身体自主权。
In WJEC essays, you should first outline the standard conservative argument (the foetus is an innocent person with a right to life; abortion is therefore morally wrong). Then introduce Thomson's violinist as a counterexample: the violinist has a right to life, yet most people do not think you are obligated to sustain his life using your body. This suggests that a right to life does not entail a right to use another's body without consent.
在 WJEC 论文中，你应当先概述标准的保守派论证（胎儿是有生命权的无辜者；因此堕胎在道德上是错误的）。然后引入汤姆逊的小提琴家作为反例：小提琴家拥有生命权，但多数人并不认为你有义务用你的身体去维持他的生命。这表明，生命权并不必然包含未经同意使用他人身体的权利。
Evaluate the analogy: a pregnancy often results from voluntary intercourse, whereas the violinist scenario involves no prior responsibility. This 'responsibility objection' weakens the analogy. However, Thomson also offers the 'people-seeds' case to address such complicity, showing that even a risk accepted voluntarily does not grant a permanent claim on one's body. A high-scoring answer will assess whether the analogy's disanalogies fatally undermine the argument or simply require refinement.
评价该类比：怀孕往往是自愿性行为的结果，而小提琴家情境不涉及任何事先责任。这一“责任反驳”削弱了类比。然而，汤姆逊还提供了“人形种子”的案例来处理此类共谋关系，表明即使自愿接受风险，也不赋予他人对身体的长久占有权。一份高分回答会评估类比中的差异是否致命性地削弱了论证，还是仅需要加以修正。
7. Case 5: Tony Bland and the Slippery Slope in Euthanasia | 案例五：托尼·布兰德与安乐死的滑坡论证
Tony Bland was a victim of the Hillsborough disaster who entered a persistent vegetative state (PVS) with no hope of recovery. His family and doctors petitioned the court to withdraw life-sustaining treatment. This real case is a classic stimulus for analysing the distinction between killing and letting die, as well as the slippery slope argument against legalising voluntary euthanasia.
托尼·布兰德是希尔斯堡惨案的受害者，陷入永久植物状态且无恢复希望。他的家人和医生请求法院允许撤除维生治疗。这一真实案例是分析“杀人”与“任其死亡”之区别的经典刺激素材，也是反对自愿安乐死合法化的滑坡论证的检验场。
Opponents of euthanasia claim that allowing doctors to end a life in PVS will lead society down a slope: first non-voluntary, then involuntary euthanasia; first the terminally ill, then the disabled. Apply this argument to the Bland case: the court distinguished between a positive act to kill and an omission of burdensome treatment, holding that the omission was lawful. Does this distinction hold up under philosophical scrutiny?
安乐死的反对者声称，允许医生终结永久植物状态患者的生命将使社会滑下斜坡：先是非自愿安乐死，再是强制安乐死；先是绝症患者，再是残疾人。将此论证应用于布兰德案：法院区分了积极的致死行为与撤除负担性治疗的疏忽，并裁定该疏忽是合法的。这种区分在哲学审视下站得住脚吗？
James Rachels famously argued that the distinction is morally irrelevant in cases where the outcome is identical and the motivation is merciful. If withdrawing a feeding tube is permissible, why not a lethal injection that causes less suffering? Students can use the Bland case to explore Rachels's challenge, but then evaluate whether the legal line between acts and omissions still plays a vital role in protecting vulnerable patients from abuse.
詹姆斯·雷切尔斯曾著名地论证，当结果完全相同且动机都是仁慈时，这种区分在道德上并无意义。如果撤除喂食管是被允许的，那么为什么不允许使用引起更少痛苦的致死注射？学生可用布兰德案探讨雷切尔斯的挑战，尔后评价行为与疏忽之间的法律界限是否在保护易受伤害的患者免遭滥权方面仍然发挥着关键作用。
8. Case 6: Brain in a Vat and Global Scepticism | 案例六：缸中之脑与全面怀疑论
Case: you are a brain in a vat of nutrients, connected to a supercomputer that feeds you perfectly realistic experiences of an external world. Every sensation you have ever had is simulated. How do you know you are not in this situation right now? This modern version of Descartes' evil demon is a direct challenge to the tripartite definition of knowledge (justified true belief) and to reliabilist theories of justification.
案例：你是一个置于营养液缸中的大脑，连接着一台超级计算机，它向你输送完美逼真的外部世界经验。你曾有过的一切感觉都是被模拟出来的。你怎么知道自己当下并不处于这种境况之中？这个笛卡尔恶魔的现代版本直接挑战了知识的三元定义（得到辩护的真信念）以及可靠性理论对辩护的说明。
Apply your knowledge: the sceptic's argument is that if you cannot rule out the brain-in-a-vat hypothesis, your ordinary perceptual beliefs lack justification. A foundationalist might respond that basic empirical beliefs are self-justified by experience. A reliabilist would say that perceptual processes are reliable in the actual world, even if the vat scenario is logically possible. Use the case to test these responses.
运用你的知识：怀疑论者的论证是，如果你不能排除缸中之脑的假设，那么你日常的知觉信念就缺乏辩护。一位基础主义者可能会回应说，基本的经验信念通过经验自身获得辩护。一位可靠性理论者则会说，在现实世界中知觉过程是可靠的，即便缸中处境在逻辑上是可能的。用这个案例检验这些回应。
For high AO2 marks, evaluate whether the 'brain in a vat' hypothesis is genuinely coherent. If all my words refer to simulated objects, the statement 'I am a brain in a vat' might refer to simulated brains and vats, making it self-refuting. This echoes Putnam's semantic externalism. Discussing such a twist shows you can engage with the deeper literature while staying rooted in the case.
为获取高 AO2 分数，评价“缸中之脑”假说本身在意义上是否真正自洽。如果我的所有语词都指向模拟对象，那么“我是缸中之脑”这一陈述可能指向的是模拟的大脑和缸，从而令其自我反驳。这呼应了普特南的语义外在论。讨论这一转折展现了你能够在扎根案例的同时，深入更广阔的文献。
9. Case 7: Libet's Experiment and Free Will | 案例七：利贝特实验与自由意志
Benjamin Libet measured participants' brain activity while they freely chose to flick their wrist. He found that a 'readiness potential' — a brain signal indicating preparation to move — occurred about 300 milliseconds before the conscious decision to move. The case suggests our conscious will might be a by-product of unconscious brain processes rather than their origin, raising deep questions for free will and moral responsibility.
本杰明·利贝特在参与者自由选择弹动手腕时测量了他们的大脑活动。他发现“准备电位”——一种表明运动准备的大脑信号——大约在意识决定要动的 300 毫秒前就已出现。该案例表明，我们的意识意志可能只是无意识大脑过程的副产品，而非其源头，从而对自由意志和道德责任提出了深刻质疑。
Apply the three main positions from the free will debate. Hard determinism: Libet shows our choices are determined by neural events, so no free will. Compatibilism: even if our actions are caused by brain states, we are free as long as we are acting without coercion and in line with our desires. Libertarianism: the conscious 'veto power' that Libet found (a brief window to cancel the action) preserves genuine free choice.
应用自由意志争论中的三种主要立场。强硬决定论：利贝特表明我们的选择是由神经事件决定的，所以没有自由意志。相容论：即便我们的行为由大脑状态引起，只要我们没有受到强制并且行为符合我们的欲望，我们就是自由的。自由意志论：利贝特发现的意识“否决权”（一个可以取消动作的短暂窗口）保留了真正的自由选择。
Evaluate: does the ability to veto an action really rescue libertarian free will, or is the veto itself caused? Further, Libet's experiment involved trivial decisions — can it be generalised to profound moral choices? A balanced evaluation will note both the limited ecological validity of the study and its philosophical significance in fuelling the free will debate. WJEC examiners value such a nuanced treatment.
评价：否决一个动作的能力真的能拯救自由意志论的自由意志吗，还是否决本身也是被引起的？再者，利贝特的实验涉及的是琐碎的决定——它能被推广到重大的道德选择吗？一份平衡的评价会既指出该研究在生态效度上的局限，也点明它在推动自由意志争论方面的哲学意义。WJEC 考官看重这种细致的处理。
10. Case Study Exam Technique for WJEC | 案例分析考试技巧
In WJEC Part B questions, you are given a scenario and asked to use your philosophical knowledge to analyse and evaluate it. Start by writing a clear introduction that names the central issue and the philosopher(s) you will use. Dedicate one paragraph to exposition — explain the theory accurately, with quotes or key terms — and two paragraphs to evaluation. Relate every point back to the specifics of the case. Conclude with a judgement about which side has the stronger argument given the scenario.
在 WJEC 的 B 部分问题中，你会得到一个情境，并被要求运用你的哲学知识去分析和评价它。开篇写出清晰的引言，点明中心议题以及你将运用的哲学家。用一个段落进行阐述——准确解释理论，引用原话或关键术语——再用两个段落进行评价。每一个论点都要回扣案例的具体细节。结尾对在该情境下哪一方的论证更有力作出判断。
Use the 'CASE' mnemonic during planning: C – Conceptual problem, A – Argument (which theory fits best?), S – Strengths of the argument in this context, E – Expose weaknesses or counterarguments. This stops you from rushing into description. Also, time management is crucial: in a 30-mark question, spend roughly 8 minutes planning, 25 minutes writing, and 2 minutes proofreading.
在计划答案时使用“CASE”助记法：C——概念问题，A——论证（哪个理论最契合？），S——论证在该语境下的优势，E——揭示弱点或反驳。这能防止你急于进入描述。此外，时间管理至关重要：在一道 30 分的题中，大约花 8 分钟计划，25 分钟书写，2 分钟校对。
11. Common Pitfalls to Avoid | 常见误区
One of the biggest mistakes is retelling the case study without analysis. WJEC examiners explicitly penalise 'narrative' rather than philosophical engagement. Another pitfall is focusing on only one theory without considering alternatives; the mark scheme rewards sustained comparison. Students also frequently state that a theory 'works' or 'fails' without explaining the criteria of success — specify what a good answer must accomplish, such as resolving a conceptual tension or explaining a moral intuition.
最大的错误之一是复述案例而不进行分析。WJEC 考官明确惩罚“叙述”而非哲学性的参与。另一个误区是仅聚焦于一种理论而不考虑替代理论；评分方案奖励持续的对比。学生也常常在声明某个理论“有效”或“失败”时，不说明成功的标准——具体指明一个好的回答必须实现什么，例如解决一个概念张力或解释一种道德直觉。
Beware of treating all arguments as equal. You should show why an objection is fatal or merely a minor adjustment. Finally, do not ignore the structure: paragraphs must link together. Signposting phrases like 'Building on this objection...' or 'A deeper problem emerges when we apply X to the case...' create the coherent argument that distinguishes A-grade scripts.
谨防将一切论证等量齐观。你应当说明为什么某个反驳是致命的，或者仅仅是一个微小的调整。最后，不可忽视结构：段落之间必须环环相扣。诸如“在这一反驳之上……”、“当我们将 X 应用于案例时，一个更深层的问题浮现了……”等路标性短语，能构建出连贯的论证，这正是 A 档答案的区分点。
12. Conclusion and Further Practice | 结论与进阶练习
Tackling a philosophical case study is a skill that improves with deliberate practice. Each case above has been chosen to isolate a different area of the WJEC Year 12 specification — from the design argument and the problem of evil to utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, applied ethics, scepticism, and free will. Repeatedly apply the three-step method (identify the problem, apply a theory, evaluate) until it becomes second nature.
攻克哲学案例分析是一项通过刻意练习可提高的技能。以上每一个案例都经过精心挑选，以单独涵盖 WJEC 12 年级大纲的不同领域——从设计论证和恶的问题，到功利主义、康德伦理学、应用伦理学、怀疑论以及自由意志。反复运用三步法（识别问题、应用理论、进行评价），直到它成为你的本能。
For further practice, take the cases above and try responding to them as if you were writing a timed 30-mark answer. Compare your essays against the WJEC mark scheme, looking for balanced AO1 and AO2 coverage. You can also invent variations on each case — what if the trolley problem's one person is a brilliant surgeon about to cure cancer? — to test the flexibility of the theories. Consistent practice with diverse cases is
Published by TutorHao | Year 12 哲学 Revision Series | aleveler.com
更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）
或截图后用「扫一扫 → 相册」选择本图