📚 Year 9 Edexcel Philosophy: Case Study Practice | 九年级Edexcel哲学：案例分析实战演练
Case studies are at the heart of Edexcel Philosophy assessments. They test your ability to move beyond memorising theories and to apply them to tricky, real-world-style dilemmas. This article walks you through a series of practical exercises, showing you exactly how to analyse scenarios, use philosophical language and structure high-mark answers.
案例分析是Edexcel哲学考试的核心。它考验你是否能跳出死记硬背的理论，将其应用到棘手的、贴近现实的困境中。本文将带你完成一系列实战练习，一步步教你如何分析情景、使用哲学术语并构建高分答案。
1. What is a Philosophical Case Study? | 什么是哲学案例分析？
A philosophical case study is a carefully constructed story that forces you to think about right and wrong, knowledge, reality or beliefs. It is not just a descriptive exercise; it demands that you bring philosophical theories into the conversation and show how they clash or complement each other.
哲学案例分析是一个精心构建的故事，迫使你思考对与错、知识、实在或信仰。它不仅仅是描述性练习；它要求你引入哲学理论，展示它们如何冲突或互补。
Typical Year 9 topics include moral dilemmas, the definition of knowledge, free will versus determinism and the problem of evil. Getting comfortable with case studies now will prepare you for GCSE and beyond.
九年级常见主题包括道德困境、知识定义、自由意志与决定论以及恶的问题。现在熟悉案例分析将为GCSE及更高年级的学习打好根基。
2. Why Case Studies Matter in Edexcel Philosophy | 为何案例分析在Edexcel哲学中重要
Edexcel mark schemes reward application and evaluation far more than simple recall. A case study is where you prove you can do philosophy, not just describe it. It shows you can select the right concepts and use them as tools to dissect a situation.
Edexcel评分方案对应用和评价的奖励远超简单复述。案例分析正是证明你能够“做哲学”而不仅仅是“描述哲学”的地方。它展示你能选择合适的理念，并将它们作为剖析情境的工具。
Moreover, practising case studies trains you to think under time pressure and to recognise which theory fits which problem. This skill separates high achievers from the rest.
此外，练习案例分析能训练你在时间压力下思考，并识别何种理论适合何种问题。这一技能将高分学生与其他学生区分开来。
3. Case Study 1 – The Trolley Problem: Utilitarianism vs. Deontology | 案例1 – 电车难题：功利主义与义务论
Scenario: A runaway trolley is hurtling towards five people tied to the main track. You are standing next to a lever that can switch the trolley to a side track, but one person is tied there. Do you pull the lever?
情景：一辆失控的电车正冲向绑在主轨道上的五个人。你站在一个可切换轨道的拉杆旁，但侧轨上绑着一个人。你会拉动拉杆吗？
A utilitarian, following Bentham and Mill, would calculate the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Saving five lives at the cost of one maximises utility, so pulling the lever is not just permissible, it is morally required.
遵循边沁和密尔的功利主义者会计算最大多数人的最大幸福。牺牲一人救五人使功利最大化，因此拉杆不仅被允许，而且是道德上的要求。
By contrast, Kantian deontology focuses on duty and universal moral law. The categorical imperative forbids using a person merely as a means to an end. Deliberately switching the track to kill the one treats that person as a tool to save others, which a Kantian would condemn.
相比之下，康德义务论关注责任和普遍道德法则。定言命令禁止仅仅把人当作手段。故意切换轨道杀死一个人，就是把那个人当作拯救他人的工具，康德主义者会谴责这种做法。
Exam tip: Always name the philosopher behind the theory and link the action's motivation to the theory's core rule. Avoid saying 'some people think' – be precise.
考试提示：务必说出理论背后的哲学家名字，并将行为动机与理论的核心规则联系起来。避免说“有些人认为”——表述要精确。
4. Case Study 2 – The Shipwreck and Cannibalism: Moral Dilemmas | 案例2 – 船难与食人：道德困境
Scenario: In the famous R v Dudley and Stephens case, four sailors were stranded after a shipwreck. With no food, two of them killed the weakest, a cabin boy, and survived by eating his flesh. They were later rescued and prosecuted for murder.
情景：在著名的“女王诉达德利和斯蒂芬斯案”中，四名水手在船难后被困。在极度饥饿中，其中两人杀死了最虚弱的船舱服务员，以他的肉为食幸存下来。他们后来获救并被控谋杀。
A utilitarian approach might defend the killing if it clearly saved more lives. However, rule utilitarianism would likely reject the act, because a rule allowing murder in desperate situations could undermine trust in society and lead to greater long-term harm.
功利主义路径可能会为杀人辩护，如果它明显拯救了更多生命。然而，规则功利主义很可能会拒绝这一行为，因为允许在绝境中杀人的规则会破坏社会信任，导致更大的长期伤害。
Natural Law theory, grounded in Aquinas, holds that some actions are intrinsically evil. The primary precept of preserving the innocent makes the killing morally wrong regardless of the consequences. The good end of survival does not justify an evil means.
基于阿奎那的自然法理论认为，有些行为本质上是恶的。保护无辜者的基本戒律使得这种杀人行为在道德上永远是错误的，无论后果如何。生存的好目的不能为邪恶的手段辩护。
When evaluating, consider the role of consent, necessity and the difference between killing and letting die. These nuances will strengthen your argument.
评价时，要考虑同意、必要性以及“杀死”与“任其死亡”的区别。这些细微之处会强化你的论证。
5. Case Study 3 – The Gettier Problem: What is Knowledge? | 案例3 – 盖梯尔问题：什么是知识？
Scenario: Smith sees Jones driving a Ford and hears Jones say he owns one. Smith forms the belief 'Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona'. Unbeknownst to Smith, Jones recently sold the car, but by sheer coincidence Brown actually is in Barcelona. The belief is true and justified. Does Smith know it?
情景：史密斯看见琼斯驾驶一辆福特车，并听到琼斯说车是他的。史密斯形成信念：“琼斯有福特车或者布朗在巴塞罗那”。史密斯不知道，琼斯刚刚把车卖掉，但纯属巧合，布朗的确在巴塞罗那。这个信念是真的且有辩护，史密斯知道吗？
Since Plato, knowledge was defined as justified true belief (JTB). Gettier cases show that you can have JTB yet still lack knowledge because the justification relies on a false premise or luck. In Smith's case, his justification (believing Jones owns a Ford) is false, yet his belief ends up true accidentally.
自柏拉图以来，知识被定义为得到辩护的真信念（JTB）。盖梯尔案例表明，你可以拥有JTB但仍然缺乏知识，因为辩护依赖于错误前提或运气。在史密斯的例子里，他的辩护（相信琼斯有福特车）是假的，而他的信念却偶然成真。
In your answer, explain why we feel knowledge is missing here. You might introduce a 'no false lemmas' condition: the justification must not rest on any false step. This deepens your epistemological analysis.
在答案中，解释为什么我们觉得这里缺少知识。你可以引入“没有错误引理”的条件：辩护不能依赖任何错误步骤。这会加深你的认识论分析。
6. Case Study 4 – Free Will and the Criminal Justice System | 案例4 – 自由意志与刑事司法系统
Scenario: Tom grew up in extreme deprivation and was exposed to violence from infancy. As an adult he commits armed robbery. A hard determinist argues that Tom’s actions are entirely the result of prior causes – genetics and environment – and that he could not have done otherwise. Should Tom be held morally responsible?
情景：汤姆在极度匮乏的环境中长大，从小目睹暴力。成年后他持械抢劫。严格决定论者主张，汤姆的行为完全是先前原因——基因和环境——的结果，他不可能有别的做法。汤姆应该承担道德责任吗？
Libertarianism on free will insists that at least some human choices are uncaused, so Tom could have resisted his past and chosen differently. Therefore, punishment is retributive and fair.
关于自由意志的自由意志主义坚持，至少有些人类选择是无原因的，所以汤姆本可以超越他的过去，做出不同选择。因此，惩罚是报应性的且公平的。
Compatibilism (soft determinism) argues that free will means acting in line with one's own desires, without external coercion. Tom wanted to commit the robbery and was not forced; thus he is responsible, even if his desires were shaped by his upbringing.
相容论（温和决定论）主张，自由意志意味着按照自己的欲望行动，没有外在强制。汤姆想要抢劫，没有被强迫；因此他负责任，即使他的欲望是由成长环境塑造的。
Link this to the purpose of punishment: retribution, deterrence or rehabilitation. A determinist might favour rehabilitation, while a libertarian could defend retribution. Show how the metaphysical debate spills into real-world ethics.
将此与惩罚的目的联系起来：报应、威慑或改造。决定论者可能倾向于改造，而自由意志主义者会为报应辩护。展示形而上学争论如何渗透到现实世界的伦理中。
7. Case Study 5 – The Problem of Evil and Suffering | 案例5 – 恶与苦难的问题
Scenario: A massive earthquake destroys a city, killing thousands of innocent children. For many, the scale of this natural evil seems incompatible with the existence of a loving, all-powerful God.
情景：一场大地震摧毁了一座城市，夺走数千无辜儿童的生命。对许多人来说，这种自然恶的规模似乎与一个慈爱、全能的上帝存在不相容。
The logical problem of evil states that an omnibenevolent God would want to prevent evil, an omnipotent God could prevent it, and an omniscient God would know about it. Yet evil exists, so such a God cannot exist. This case forces the believer to offer a theodicy – an explanation of why a good God allows evil.
逻辑上的恶问题说：全善的上帝想要阻止恶，全能的上帝能够阻止恶，全知的上帝会知道恶。然而恶存在，所以这样的上帝不可能存在。这一案例迫使信徒提供神正论——解释为何良善的上帝允许恶存在。
The Augustinian theodicy sees evil as a privation of good, a corruption brought about by free will. Natural evil is the consequence of humanity's fall. The Irenaean theodicy claims that evil and suffering help souls grow and develop virtue; a world without challenges would prevent moral and spiritual maturity.
奥古斯丁神正论将恶视为善的缺失，是由自由意志带来的败坏。自然恶是人类堕落的后果。爱任纽神正论主张，恶与苦难帮助灵魂成长，培养美德；没有挑战的世界会阻碍道德和灵性的成熟。
When evaluating, ask: does the free will defence explain natural evil convincingly? Could not God create a world where free beings always choose good? Showing awareness of these problems boosts your grade.
评价时提问：自由意志辩护能否令人信服地解释自然恶？难道上帝不能创造一个自由受造物总是选择善的世界吗？表现出对这些问题的认识会提高你的分数。
8. How to Structure Your Case Study Answer | 如何组织你的案例分析答案
Begin with a crisp introduction that identifies the philosophical issue. Then apply Theory A, explaining what its key thinker would say and why. Use phrases like 'According to Kant...' or 'A utilitarian would calculate...' to keep your analysis grounded.
开头用简洁的引言指出哲学问题。然后应用理论A，解释其关键思想家会怎么说以及为什么。使用“根据康德……”、“功利主义者会计算……”等短语，使分析有据可依。
Next, introduce a contrasting theory and walk it through the same steps. Finally, evaluate which approach is stronger or where both fall short. A truly excellent answer will mention a limitation of each theory and offer a justified final judgement.
接着，引入对比理论，按照同样的步骤走一遍。最后评价哪种进路更强，或两者哪里不足。真正优秀的答案会提及每个理论的局限，并做出有辩护的最终判断。
Use the PEEL framework: Point, Evidence (or theory), Explanation (application to the case), Link back to the question. This keeps your writing focused and exam-friendly.
使用PEEL框架：观点、证据（或理论）、解释（对案例的应用）、回连问题。这能使你的写作保持聚焦，且契合考试要求。
9. Common Mistakes to Avoid | 要避免的常见错误
The biggest pitfall is story-telling: do not simply repeat the case study. Every sentence must do philosophical work. Another error is failing to use subject vocabulary – 'hedonic calculus', 'categorical imperative', 'justified true belief' – which signals to the examiner that you understand the discipline.
最大的陷阱是讲故事：不要只是复述案例。每句话都必须起到哲学作用。另一个错误是未能使用学科词汇——“快乐计算”、“定言命令”、“得到辩护的真信念”——这些向考官表明你理解学科。
Avoid vague phrases like 'this is wrong because it is unfair'. Instead, root your judgement in a named theory. Also, do not dismiss a theory without explaining why – always give reasons. Finally, ensure you address the question's directive words
Published by TutorHao | Year 9 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