📚 Year 12 Edexcel Philosophy: Case Study Practice Drills | Year 12 Edexcel 哲学：案例分析实战演练
Case studies are the beating heart of Edexcel A-Level Philosophy. Whether you are tackling a 12-mark ‘apply’ question in epistemology or constructing a 20-mark essay in ethics, the ability to break down a scenario, identify the philosophical issues, and deploy your knowledge of arguments and counter-arguments is essential. This article provides a series of targeted practice drills that mirror the structure and rigour of the Year 12 exam, covering epistemology, moral philosophy, philosophy of religion, and philosophy of mind. Each drill includes a real-world-style case, an analysis framework, and model reasoning so you can train your philosophical instincts and write answers that fully meet the Assessment Objectives.
案例分析是 Edexcel A-Level 哲学的灵魂。无论是应对认识论中 12 分的 ‘应用’ 题，还是构建伦理学中 20 分的论文，拆解情境、识别哲学问题并运用论证与反驳的能力都至关重要。本文提供一系列有针对性的实战演练，模拟 Year 12 考试的结构与严格度，覆盖认识论、道德哲学、宗教哲学和心灵哲学。每项练习包含一个现实风格案例、分析框架和示范推理，帮助你训练哲学直觉，写出完全符合评估目标的答案。
1. Epistemology Case Study: The Gettier-style Counterexample | 认识论案例分析：盖梯尔式反例
Scenario: Sam believes that his colleague Jones will get the promotion because the boss told him privately that Jones has the most years of service. Sam also just counted the coins in Jones's pocket and knows Jones has ten coins. From this, Sam forms the belief, ‘The person who will get the promotion has ten coins in their pocket.’ Unknown to Sam, the boss changed his mind and Sam himself will get the promotion. Coincidentally, Sam also has ten coins in his own pocket. Does Sam have knowledge?
情境：萨姆相信同事琼斯会升职，因为老板私下告诉他琼斯工龄最长。萨姆还刚刚数了琼斯口袋里的硬币，知道琼斯有十枚硬币。由此，萨姆形成信念：‘即将升职的人口袋里有十枚硬币。’ 不知道的是，老板改变了主意，萨姆本人将获得升职。巧合的是，萨姆自己口袋里也有十枚硬币。萨姆拥有知识吗？
This is a classic Gettier-style case designed to test the traditional tripartite definition of knowledge as justified true belief (JTB). Sam's belief is true (he will get the promotion and has ten coins), it is justified (he has good evidence about Jones and counted the coins), yet most philosophers agree this is not knowledge because the truth is disconnected from the justification. The case shows that JTB is not sufficient; a fourth condition, such as a no-false-lemma condition or a reliable cognitive process, is needed. In your answer, you would explain why the JTB analysis fails here, then evaluate whether adding a ‘safety’ or ‘sensitivity’ condition solves the problem.
这是经典的盖梯尔式案例，旨在检验传统知识三元定义——证成的真信念（JTB）。萨姆的信念为真（他将升职且口袋里有十枚硬币），它得到证成（他有关于琼斯的良好证据并数了硬币），然而多数哲学家同意这并非知识，因为真理与证成之间脱节。案例表明 JTB 并不充分；需要第四个条件，例如无假前提条件或可靠的认知过程。在答案中，你要解释为何 JTB 分析在此失败，然后评估添加 ‘安全性’ 或 ‘敏感性’ 条件能否解决问题。
2. Moral Philosophy: Applying Act Utilitarianism to a Medical Dilemma | 道德哲学：将行为功利主义应用于医疗困境
Scenario: Dr. Chen has five patients who will die without organ transplants: one needs a heart, two need kidneys, one needs a liver, and one needs lungs. A healthy neighbour, Mr. Adams, comes in for a routine check-up. Dr. Chen realises that if Adams were to die in an ‘accident’, his organs could save all five patients. Should Dr. Chen kill Adams according to act utilitarianism?
情境：陈医生有五位病人，如果不进行器官移植就会死亡：一位需要心脏，两位需要肾脏，一位需要肝脏，一位需要肺。一位健康的邻居亚当斯先生来做常规体检。陈医生意识到，如果亚当斯死于一场 ‘意外’，他的器官可以拯救全部五位病人。根据行为功利主义，陈医生应该杀死亚当斯吗？
Act utilitarianism, as defended by Jeremy Bentham, judges each action by its consequences: the right action is the one that maximises overall happiness. Using the hedonic calculus, killing Adams might produce +5 lives saved (huge pleasure) minus Adams's death (pain) and the anxiety created in society. On a crude calculation, the utility seems higher. However, rule utilitarianism (Mill) would argue that a rule against killing innocent people produces greater long-term utility. In an essay, you would analyse the intensity, duration, certainty, and extent of the consequences, then contrast act and rule utilitarianism, showing how the case exposes the strengths and weaknesses of the theory.
行为功利主义，如边沁所辩护，根据行为的后果来判断：正确的行为是最大化总体幸福的那个。使用快乐计算，杀死亚当斯可能产生 +5 条生命得救（极大快乐）减去亚当斯的死亡（痛苦）以及社会产生的焦虑。粗略计算，功利看起来更高。然而，规则功利主义（密尔）会主张禁止杀害无辜者的规则能产生更大的长期功利。在论文中，你要分析后果的强度、持续时间、确定性、范围，然后对比行为与规则功利主义，展示该案例如何暴露理论的优缺点。
3. Moral Philosophy: Kantian Ethics and the Inquiring Murderer | 道德哲学：康德伦理学与问路的杀人犯
Scenario: A man intent on killing your friend knocks on your door and asks, ‘Is your friend hiding in your house?’ You know your friend is inside. According to Kant's categorical imperative, are you permitted to lie?
情境：一个意图杀害你朋友的人敲你的门并问：‘你的朋友藏在你家里吗？’ 你知道朋友就在屋内。根据康德的绝对命令，你被允许说谎吗？
Kant's ethics centres on the categorical imperative, especially the formula of universal law: act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. If you lie, your maxim would be ‘It is permissible to lie in order to protect an innocent person.’ Universalising this maxim leads to a contradiction in conception: if everyone lied in such situations, the practice of truth-telling would break down and the lie would not achieve its purpose because the murderer would not believe you. Therefore, Kant argues that lying is never permissible. You could also apply the formula of humanity, which requires treating persons never merely as a means. Lying to the murderer uses him as a mere means. In your evaluation, you might discuss whether Kant's absolute prohibition on lying is too rigid, and whether a contemporary Kantian like Christine Korsgaard could offer a more flexible interpretation.
康德的伦理学以绝对命令为核心，特别是普遍法则公式：只按照你同时愿意它成为普遍法则的准则去行动。如果你说谎，你的准则将是 ‘为了保护无辜者而说谎是允许的。’ 将此准则普遍化会导致概念上的矛盾：如果人人都在此类情境下说谎，诚实的实践将崩溃，谎言也无法达到目的，因为杀人犯不会相信你。因此，康德认为说谎从不被允许。你也可以运用人性公式，要求永远不把人仅仅当作手段。对杀人犯说谎就把他仅仅当作手段。在评估中，你可以讨论康德的绝对禁止说谎是否过于僵化，以及当代康德主义者如科尔斯戈德能否提供更灵活的解释。
4. Moral Philosophy: Virtue Ethics and the Brave Whistleblower | 道德哲学：德性伦理学与勇敢的举报人
Scenario: Lena works for a large corporation that is secretly dumping toxic waste into a river. Reporting this would protect public health but would certainly result in her losing her job, facing legal harassment, and possibly endangering her family. What would a virtue ethicist advise Lena to do?
情境：莉娜在一家偷偷向河流倾倒有毒废物的大公司工作。举报会保护公众健康，但必定导致她失业、面临法律骚扰，并可能危及家人。德性伦理学家会建议莉娜怎么做？
Aristotelian virtue ethics focuses on the agent's character and the virtue of practical wisdom (phronesis). The virtue of honesty would push Lena towards truth-telling, while courage would require her to face fear appropriately. However, a virtuous agent must also consider the virtue of loyalty to her family. Through practical wisdom, she would find the mean between the vices of cowardice (doing nothing) and recklessness (acting without considering family safety). Perhaps the virtuous response is to report the dumping while taking steps to protect her family, e.g., anonymously or by moving them away. In an exam, you would explain these virtues, show how they interplay, and critically compare virtue ethics with utilitarian and deontological approaches, highlighting that virtue ethics does not provide a clear action-guidance rule but focuses on character development.
亚里士多德式德性伦理学关注行为者的品格和实践智慧（phronesis）的德性。诚实之德会推动莉娜说真话，而勇敢则需要她恰当地面对恐惧。然而，有德的行为者还必须考虑对家庭的忠诚之德。通过实践智慧，她会在怯懦（无所作为）与鲁莽（不考虑家庭安全而行动）的恶之间找到中道。也许有德性的回应是举报倾倒行为，同时采取措施保护家人，例如匿名举报或将家人搬走。在考试中，你要解释这些德性，展示它们如何相互作用，并批判性地将德性伦理学与功利主义和义务论进路进行比较，强调德性伦理学不提供清晰的行动指导规则，而是关注品格培养。
5. Philosophy of Religion: The Problem of Evil and a Child's Suffering | 宗教哲学：恶的问题与儿童受苦
Scenario: A two-year-old child, Maya, is diagnosed with an extremely painful bone cancer and dies after months of agony despite the prayers of her loving family. This concrete instance of intense, seemingly pointless suffering raises the evidential problem of evil. How can an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God allow this?
情境：两岁幼儿玛雅被诊断出患有极其痛苦的骨癌，尽管有慈爱家人的祈祷，她仍在数月痛苦后死去。这一强烈且看似无意义的受苦实例引发了证据性的恶的问题。全能、全善的上帝怎能允许此事发生？
This case is a powerful test for theodicies. The Augustinian theodicy claims evil is a privation of good owing to free will and original sin, but it is difficult to see how a two-year-old's cancer results from moral evil. The Irenaean soul-making theodicy suggests suffering develops virtues like compassion and courage; yet the evidential scale and apparent randomness of Maya's suffering challenge whether a perfect God would use such drastic means. A process theology response might limit God's power, but this abandons classical theism. In your essay, you must weigh these theodicies against the case, using criteria like logical consistency and existential adequacy. You should also reference the evidential problem as articulated by William Rowe using similar cases of innocent suffering.
此案例是对神正论的有力检验。奥古斯丁式神正论声称恶是善的缺乏，源于自由意志与原罪，但很难看出两岁孩童的癌症如何源于道德恶。爱任纽式的灵魂塑造神正论主张受苦能培养德性如悲悯与勇气；然而玛雅受苦的证据性规模和表面随机性挑战了完美上帝是否会使用如此激烈的手段。过程神学的回应可能限制上帝的能力，但这放弃了古典有神论。在论文中，你必须对照案例权衡这些神正论，使用逻辑一致性和存在充分性等标准。你还应参考威廉·罗用类似无辜受苦案例阐述的证据性恶的问题。
6. Philosophy of Religion: The Teleological Argument and the Eye | 宗教哲学：设计论证与眼睛
Scenario: The human eye is often cited as a paradigm of design: its intricate parts—cornea, lens, retina, iris—work together to produce vision, seemingly analogous to a camera. Paley's watchmaker argument uses such examples to infer a divine designer. Does modern evolutionary biology undermine this case, or can it be reformulated?
情境：人眼常被引为设计的典范：其精密部件——角膜、晶状体、视网膜、虹膜——协同工作产生视觉，仿佛与相机类似。佩利的钟表匠论证用这类例子推论一位神圣设计者。现代进化生物学是否削弱了这一案例，还是它能被重新表述？
In an AS exam, you would explain Paley's analogical argument: the eye exhibits complexity and purpose, which in a watch implies a watchmaker; by analogy, the universe implies a universe-maker. Hume's criticisms from the Dialogues are crucial: the analogy is weak because the eye is organic and self-replicating, unlike a watch; and the argument from design does not lead to the God of classical theism. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection offers a naturalistic explanation of apparent design: cumulative small variations and selective advantage can produce complex organs. However, you might also note that modern fine-tuning arguments shift the case away from biology to cosmology. To score high marks, evaluate the strength of the analogy and whether evolutionary explanations fully defeat the design intuition.
在AS考试中，你要解释佩利的类比论证：眼睛展示出复杂性与目的性，这在钟表中暗示钟表匠；通过类比，宇宙暗示一位宇宙制造者。休谟在《对话录》中的批评至关重要：类比很弱，因为眼睛是器官的且能自我复制，不像钟表；而且设计论证并不能导向古典有神论的上帝。达尔文的自然选择进化论为表面设计提供了自然主义解释：累积的微小变异和选择优势可以产生复杂器官。然而，你也可以注意到现代微调论证将案例从生物学转向宇宙学。为了得高分，需评估类比的力度以及进化论解释是否完全击败了设计直觉。
7. Philosophy of Mind: Mary's Room and the Knowledge Argument | 心灵哲学：玛丽的房间与知识论证
Scenario: Mary is a brilliant neuroscientist confined to a black-and-white room. She learns every physical fact about colour vision through a black-and-white monitor. When she is finally released and sees a red rose for the first time, she learns something new: what it is like to see red. Does this thought experiment, proposed by Frank Jackson, refute physicalism?
情境：玛丽是一位杰出的神经科学家，被关在一间黑白房间里。她通过黑白显示器学习了有关颜色视觉的一切物理事实。当她最终被释放并第一次看到一朵红玫瑰时，她学到了新东西：看到红色的体验是什么样子的。杰克逊提出的这个思想实验是否驳倒了物理主义？
This is the knowledge argument against physicalism. The argument runs: (1) Mary knows all physical facts about colour vision before release. (2) Upon release, she learns a new fact (what it is like to see red). (3) Therefore, there are non-physical facts (qualia). Physicalists have responded with the ability hypothesis (Mary merely gains abilities, not factual knowledge) and the phenomenal concept strategy (Mary acquires a new phenomenal concept of an old physical fact). As a Year 12 student, you could structure a response around the conceivability of zombies, the explanatory gap, and whether subjective character is reducible. Evaluate whether the physicalist replies succeed in showing that Mary does not learn a genuinely new fact.
这是反对物理主义的知识论证。论证如下：(1) 玛丽在释放前知道所有关于颜色视觉的物理事实。(2) 释放后她学到了一个新事实（看到红色的体验是什么样子的）。(3) 因此，存在非物理的事实（感受质）。物理主义者用能力假说（玛丽只是获得了能力，而非事实知识）和现象概念策略（玛丽获得了旧物理事实的新现象概念）来回应。作为 Year 12 学生，你可以围绕僵尸的可设想性、解释鸿沟以及主观特性是否可还原来组织回答。评估物理主义者的回应是否成功表明玛丽并未学到真正的新事实。
8. Ethics Application: Animal Testing and Speciesism | 伦理应用：动物实验与物种歧视
Scenario: A cosmetics company tests a new shampoo on 200 rabbits, causing severe eye irritation and pain, to ensure the product is safe for humans. Critics call this speciesist. Using Singer's preference utilitarianism and a rights-based approach, assess the ethical permissibility of this practice.
情境：一家化妆品公司在 200 只兔子身上测试新款洗发水，造成严重的眼部刺激和疼痛，以确保产品对人类安全。批评者称之为物种歧视。利用辛格的偏好功利主义和基于权利的进路，评估这一做法的道德容许性。
Singer, a preference utilitarian, argues that all beings with interests in avoiding pain deserve equal consideration. The principle of equal consideration of interests prohibits discounting rabbit suffering simply because they are not human. Calculating the aggregate pain of 200 rabbits against the cosmetic benefit to humans, a utilitarian would likely find the testing unjustified because the human benefit (slightly improved shampoo) is trivial compared to the intense suffering. Tom Regan's rights view would go further, arguing that rabbits as ‘subjects-of-a-life’ have inherent value and a right not to be used as mere means. A Kantian could struggle here because animals lack rationality, but contemporary Kantians may extend duties indirectly. In evaluation, discuss whether species membership is morally relevant, and whether a contractarian can justify animal experimentation.
辛格是一位偏好功利主义者，主张所有有利益（如避免痛苦）的存在者都应得到平等考量。利益平等考量的原则禁止仅仅因为兔子不是人类就贬低其痛苦。计算 200 只兔子的总痛苦与人类的美容收益，功利主义者很可能认为这一测试不正当，因为人类收益（稍稍改善的洗发水）与巨大的痛苦相比微不足道。汤姆·雷根的权利观会更进一步，主张兔子作为 ‘生命主体’ 具有固有价值，并有不被仅仅当作手段的权利。康德主义在此可能遇到困难，因为动物缺乏理性，但当代康德主义者可能间接扩展义务。在评估中，讨论物种成员资格是否具有道德相关性，以及契约论者能否为动物实验辩护。
9. Meta-Ethics: Moral Disagreement and the Trolley Problem | 元伦理学：道德分歧与电车难题
Scenario: In the standard 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 with one person tied down. Two individuals, Alice and Bob, disagree: Alice says it is morally required to pull the lever (maximise lives saved); Bob says it is wrong to intentionally cause a death, even to save more. What does this fundamental disagreement tell us about the nature of moral truth?
情境：在标准电车难题中，一辆失控电车冲向绑在轨道上的五个人。你可以拉动拉杆将电车转向侧轨，那里绑着一个人。艾丽斯和鲍勃意见分歧：艾丽斯说拉下拉杆是道德上必需的（拯救更多生命）；鲍勃说故意导致他人死亡是错误的，即便能救更多人。这种根本性的分歧告诉我们关于道德真理本质的什么？
This case opens a window on meta-ethical positions. A moral realist would hold that there is a fact of the matter about whether pulling the lever is right, and at least one of them is mistaken. A naturalist realist might say moral properties are natural facts about well-being; a non-naturalist like Moore would see ‘goodness’ as a simple, non-natural property. In contrast, an emotivist (Ayer) would claim that Alice and Bob are merely expressing emotions, not stating facts: Alice expresses approval of utility-maximising, Bob disapproval of killing. A prescriptivist (Hare) would argue they are issuing universal prescriptions. In your evaluation, examine whether the depth of moral disagreement supports anti-realism or whether convergence after ideal reflection might preserve realism.
此案例打开了元伦理学立场的窗口。道德实在论者会主张存在一个有关拉下拉杆是否正确的事实，且艾丽斯和鲍勃至少有一人是错的。自然主义实在论者可能说道德属性是关于福祉的自然事实；非自然主义者如摩尔会将 ‘善’ 视为单纯的非自然属性。相反，情感主义者（艾耶尔）会声称艾丽斯和鲍勃只是在表达情感，而非陈述事实：艾丽斯表达对功利最大化的赞成，鲍勃表达对杀害的反对。规定主义者（黑尔）会认为他们在发出普遍规定。在评估中，考察道德分歧的深度是否支持反实在论，或者理想反思后的趋同能否维持实在论。
10. Exam Technique: Structuring a Case Study Response | 考试技巧：构建案例分析答案
Whatever the case, your answer must demonstrate AO1 (knowledge and understanding) and AO2 (analysis and evaluation). Begin by briefly identifying the philosophical issue the case raises. Then, present the relevant theory clearly, showing how it applies to the specific details of the case. Use phrases like ‘In this scenario...’ and ‘According to...’ to anchor your analysis. For a 20-mark essay, after applying the theory, you must evaluate: discuss two or three objections, and respond to them. Conclude with a judgement that is fully justified by your preceding analysis. The following table provides a quick reference for linking case types to core theories.
无论案例如何，你的答案必须展现 AO1（知识与理解）和 AO2（分析与评价）。开头简要点明案例引发的哲学问题。然后清晰陈述相关理论，展示它如何应用于案例的具体细节。用 ‘在此情境中……’ 和 ‘根据……’ 等短语锚定分析。对于 20 分论文，应用理论后必须评价：讨论两到三个反驳并回应它们。最后给出由前文分析充分证立的判断。下表提供了将案例类型与核心理论联系起来的快速参考。
| Case Area | Key Theories to Apply | Typical Evaluative Moves |
| Gettier Cases | JTB, No False Lemmas, Reliabilism, Virtue Epistemology | Does the fourth condition succeed? New counterexamples. |
| Moral Dilemmas | Utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics, Virtue Ethics, Situation Ethics | Clash between consequences and principles; demandingness. |
| Evil and Suffering | Augustinian Theodicy, Irenaean Theodicy, Process Theology | Logical vs evidential problem; adequacy for innocent suffering. |
| Design Arguments | Paley, Hume, Darwin, Swinburne's simplicity, Fine-tuning | Strength of analogy; multiverse hypothesis vs designer. |
| Mind Scenarios | Dualism, Physicalism, Knowledge Argument, Zombie Argument | Conceivability vs possibility; explanatory gap; phenomenal concepts. |
Published by TutorHao | Philosophy 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