📚 Year 9 WJEC Philosophy: Case Study Practical Exercises | WJEC九年级哲学：案例分析实战演练
In your WJEC Philosophy course, you will often be asked to apply philosophical ideas to real‑life or imagined situations. This is called a case study. It tests whether you can move beyond memorising theories and actually use them to analyse ethical dilemmas, questions of knowledge, or religious beliefs. A well‑structured case study answer demonstrates understanding, evaluation, and clarity.
在 WJEC 哲学课程中，你经常会被要求将哲学观点应用到真实或想象的场景中。这便是案例分析。它检验你是否能超越死记硬背理论，真正运用它们去分析伦理困境、知识问题或宗教信仰。一份结构清晰的案例分析答案能展示出你的理解力、评估能力和条理性。
1. What is a Case Study in Philosophy? | 什么是哲学中的案例分析？
A case study is a short, focused scenario that highlights a philosophical problem. It might describe an ethical conflict, a strange claim about knowledge, or a challenge to belief in God. Your job is to identify the philosophical issue, explain which theories relate to it, and then weigh up the strengths and weaknesses of those theories when applied to the case.
案例分析是一个简短而聚焦的场景，突显出一个哲学问题。它可能描述一个伦理冲突、一个关于知识的奇怪断言，或一个对上帝信仰的挑战。你的任务是识别其中的哲学议题，解释哪些理论与之相关，然后权衡这些理论在应用到该案例时的优缺点。
2. Steps to Analyse a Case Study | 分析案例的步骤
Start by reading the scenario twice. Underline key phrases that signal a moral choice, a knowledge claim, or a religious concept. Then break your response into four stages: identify the problem, link relevant philosophical theories, apply them to the case, and evaluate which approach is most convincing and why.
开始时读两遍场景。划出标志着道德选择、知识论断或宗教概念的关键词句。然后将你的回答分成四个步骤：识别问题，联系相关的哲学理论，把它们应用到案例中，以及评估哪一种进路最有说服力并说明原因。
Keep your analysis organised. Use connectives like ‘This suggests…’, ‘A utilitarian would argue…’, ‘In contrast, Kant would say…’. Always finish a paragraph by returning to the details of the case to show you are not simply reciting theory.
让你的分析有条理。使用诸如“这表明……”、“一位功利主义者会主张……”、“相反，康德会说……”这样的连接词。每一段结尾都要回扣案例的细节，以表明你不只是背诵理论。
3. Ethical Dilemma: The Runaway Trolley | 伦理困境：失控的电车
Imagine a runaway trolley is hurtling down a track toward five workers. You are standing by a lever. If you pull the lever, the trolley will switch to a side track where only one worker is tied. You cannot stop the trolley; you can only choose whether to pull the lever. Should you intervene and sacrifice one to save five?
想象一辆失控的电车正沿着轨道冲向五名工人。你站在一个拉杆旁边。如果你拉动拉杆，电车将转向侧轨，那里只绑着一名工人。你无法停下电车；你只能选择是否拉动拉杆。你应该介入牺牲一人来拯救五人吗？
4. Applying Ethical Theories to the Trolley Case | 将伦理学理论应用于电车案例
A utilitarian, like Jeremy Bentham, would focus on the consequences. Since five lives are worth more than one, pulling the lever maximises happiness and minimises suffering. The answer seems obvious: you must pull the lever. This aligns with the Greatest Happiness Principle.
像边沁这样的功利主义者会关注后果。因为五条命的价值大于一条命，拉动拉杆将幸福最大化、痛苦最小化。答案似乎很明显：你必须拉动拉杆。这符合最大幸福原则。
In contrast, a Kantian deontologist would argue that you cannot use the single worker merely as a means to an end. Deliberately redirecting the trolley toward an innocent person, even to save others, treats that person without dignity. For Kant, the right action respects the moral law — do not murder innocents — regardless of consequences.
相反，康德道义论者会主张，你不能仅仅将那名单身工人当作达成目的的手段。故意将电车转向一个无辜的人，即便为了拯救他人，也是不尊重那个人的尊严。对康德而言，正确的行为尊重道德律——不杀害无辜——而不论后果如何。
- Utilitarian response: Pull the lever. Outcome produces the greatest net good.
- 功利主义的回应： 拉动拉杆。结果产生最大的净善。
- Kantian response: Do not pull the lever. You may not violate an innocent’s rights.
- 康德式的回应： 不要拉动拉杆。你不得侵犯无辜者的权利。
Your case study answer should highlight that both views have weaknesses. Utilitarianism might justify abhorrent acts if they produce good numbers; Kantian ethics might lead to terrible outcomes if rules are inflexible. Mentioning these tensions shows evaluative skill.
你的案例分析答案应当指出两种观点都有弱点。功利主义如果为了产生好看的数字，可能为令人厌恶的行为辩护；康德伦理学若规则僵化，则可能导致糟糕的后果。提及这些张力能显示评估能力。
5. Epistemology Case: The Fake Barn County | 认识论案例：假谷仓县
Henry is driving through Fake Barn County. Unbeknown to him, the locals have built dozens of papier‑mâché barn facades. By chance, Henry points at the one real barn and says, ‘That is a barn.’ His belief is true, and he formed it using his eyesight. Does Henry genuinely know it is a barn?
亨利正驾车穿过假谷仓县。他不知情的是，当地人造了几十座纸糊的谷仓外立面。碰巧，亨利指着唯一一座真谷仓说：“那是一座谷仓。”他的信念为真，并且是他用自己的视力形成的。亨利真正地知道那是一座谷仓吗？
6. The Tripartite Definition and Gettier Problems | 三要素定义与盖梯尔问题
Traditionally, knowledge is defined as justified true belief (JTB). Henry’s belief is true; it is justified by his normal visual experience; but many philosophers would say he lacks knowledge because his justification relied on luck. The barn facades made his belief too easily false. This type of example, called a Gettier case, shows that JTB is not sufficient for knowledge.
传统上，知识被定义为经过辩护的真信念（JTB）。亨利的信念为真；它由他正常的视觉经验所辩护；但许多哲学家会说他不具有知识，因为他的辩护依赖运气。那些谷仓外立面使他的信念很容易为假。这类例子，称为盖梯尔案例，表明 JTB 对知识而言并不足够。
When analysing a Gettier‑style case, first explain why the conditions of JTB seem to be met. Then explain why intuition tells us knowledge is absent — usually because of an element of luck. Finally, discuss a possible fix, such as adding a ‘no defeaters’ condition or requiring a reliable belief‑forming process (reliabilism).
在分析盖梯尔式案例时，首先要解释为什么看起来满足了 JTB 条件。然后解释为什么我们的直觉告诉我们知识缺失了——通常是因为运气成分。最后，讨论一种可能的修正，例如增加一个“无否决理由”的条件，或者要求一个可靠的信念形成过程（可靠主义）。
| Condition | Does Henry meet it? |
| Belief | Yes, he believes it's a barn. |
| Truth | Yes, it is the real barn. |
| Justification | Yes, his eyesight is usually reliable. |
| Knowledge? | Intuition says NO — too much luck. |
This table helps you map the case directly to the JTB framework, a key skill for WJEC exams.
这张表格帮助你把案例直接对应到 JTB 框架上，这是 WJEC 考试的一项关键技能。
7. Religious Philosophy Case: The Inconsistent Triad | 宗教哲学案例：不一致的三元组
Mackie’s inconsistent triad presents a logical problem: if God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, evil should not exist. Yet evil undeniably exists. Therefore, either God is not all‑powerful, not all‑loving, or both — or God does not exist. This case study asks you to explore whether the existence of evil refutes the classical theistic God.
麦基的不一致三元组呈现了一个逻辑问题：如果上帝是全能和全善的，那么恶就不应该存在。然而恶无法否认地存在着。因此，要么上帝并非全能，要么并非全善，或者两者皆非——又或者上帝不存在。这个案例要求你探究恶的存在是否反驳了古典有神论的上帝。
8. Applying Theodicies to the Problem of Evil | 将神义论应用于恶的问题
A theist might respond with a theodicy — an attempt to justify God’s permission of evil. The Augustinian theodicy claims that evil is not a substance but a privation of good, caused by human free will. God remains blameless. However, this struggles with natural evil (earthquakes, disease) which is not caused by human free choices. It also relies on a literal interpretation of Genesis, which many reject.
有神论者可能用神义论来回应——一种为上帝允许恶存在而辩护的尝试。奥古斯丁神义论声称，恶并非实体，而是善的缺失，由人类自由意志造成。上帝仍无可指责。然而，这难以解释自然灾害（地震、疾病），它们并非由人类自由选择造成。它还依赖对《创世记》的字面解释，许多人对此并不接受。
The Irenaean theodicy sees evil as a tool for soul‑making: suffering allows us to grow morally and spiritually. While this gives a purpose to pain, critics argue that the sheer amount and intensity of suffering — such as the Holocaust — cannot be justified as mere character‑building. An omnipotent God could achieve the same growth without horrific suffering.
爱任纽神义论将恶视为塑造灵魂的工具：苦难让我们在道德和灵性上成长。虽然这赋予了痛苦以目的，但批评者指出，苦难的数量和强度——例如大屠杀——不能被合理化为单纯的性格塑造。一个全能的上帝可以在没有可怕苦难的情况下实现同样的成长。
When evaluating the triad, always link back to the attributes of God. If a theodicy requires limiting God’s power or goodness, it may no longer be defending the God of classical theism. A strong case study answer acknowledges this tension.
在评估三元组时，始终要回扣上帝的属性。如果一个神义论要求限制上帝的能力或良善，它可能就不再是在捍卫古典有神论的上帝了。一份有力的案例分析答案会承认这种张力。
9. Evaluating Arguments: Strengths and Weaknesses | 评估论证：优缺点
Evaluation means going beyond description. For any case, ask: does the theory give a clear answer? Are the assumptions it relies on plausible? Does it handle counter‑examples well? A utilitarian might quickly calculate results, but can we really measure happiness or compare apples to oranges? A Kantian rule may uphold rights, but what happens when two duties clash?
评估意味着超越描述。对任何案例，问一问：这个理论给出了明确的答案吗？它依赖的假设合理吗？它能很好地处理反例吗？功利主义者可以快速计算后果，但我们真的能量度幸福，或者将苹果与橘子作比较吗？康德的规则可能捍卫权利，但当两种义务冲突时会发生什么？
Use phrases like ‘A strength of this approach is…’, ‘However, a significant limitation is…’, ‘This leads to the counter‑intuitive conclusion that…’. Always justify your evaluation with reasons tied to the case. This demonstrates high‑level analysis.
使用诸如“这种进路的一个优点是……”、“然而，一个显著的局限是……”、“这导致了反直觉的结论，即……”这样的短语。始终用与案例相关的理由来支持你的评估。这展示了高层次的分析能力。
10. Common Fallacies to Avoid | 常见的逻辑谬误
When writing up your case study, steer clear of these mistakes:
在撰写你的案例分析时，避免以下错误：
- Straw man: weakening the opposing view to easily knock it down. Always represent the strongest version of each theory.
- 稻草人谬误： 弱化对方观点以轻松驳倒它。始终呈现每个理论最强版本的表述。
- Ad hominem: attacking the person rather than the argument. In philosophy, we critique ideas, not people.
- 人身攻击谬误： 攻击人而不是论证。在哲学中，我们批判观点，而非人。
- Begging the question: assuming what you are trying to prove. e.g., ‘We know pulling the lever is right because it’s the moral action.’
- 乞题谬误： 把你想证明的东西当作前提。例如，“我们知道拉动拉杆是对的，因为那是道德的行为。”
- False dilemma: presenting only two options when more exist. The trolley case might allow shouting a warning, if the scenario permits it. Acknowledge nuance.
- 假两难谬误： 只给出两个选项，其实还有更多可能。如果场景允许，电车案例或许可以通过喊叫警告来解决。承认细微差别。
Avoiding these fallacies makes your analysis tighter and more credible.
避免这些谬误将使你的分析更严密、更可信。
11. Model Answer Structure | 范文结构
A strong WJEC case study answer follows this rhythm:
一份有力的 WJEC 案例分析答案遵循以下节奏：
Step 1: Identify the problem. Restate the dilemma in your own words. ‘The core question is whether sacrificing one for five is morally permissible.’
第1步：识别问题。 用自己的话重述困境。“核心问题是，牺牲一人救五人是否在道德上被允许。”
Step 2: Introduce theory A and apply it. ‘A utilitarian would argue… because the outcome maximises welfare. In this case, pulling the lever produces a net saving of four lives.’
第2步：引入理论A并应用。 “一位功利主义者会主张……因为结果最大化福祉。在此案例中，拉动拉杆净拯救四条生命。”
Step 3: Introduce theory B and apply it. ‘Conversely, a Kantian would contend… since the act uses a person as a mere means. Redirecting the train, even to save many, treats the single worker as a tool.’
第3步：引入理论B并应用。 “相反，一位康德主义者会主张……因为这一行为将人仅用作手段。即使为了救多人而改变电车方向，也是把那位单身工人当作了工具。”
Step 4: Evaluate. Weigh up which theory fares better in this specific scenario and explain why. Consider how each theory copes with the case’s particular details.
第4步：评估。 权衡在这个具体场景中哪个理论更站得住脚，并解释原因。考虑每个理论如何处理该案例的特殊细节。
Step 5: Conclude. Sum up your judgement without simply repeating. ‘Thus, while utilitarianism offers a clear resolution, it demands we ignore a fundamental moral prohibition.’
第5步：结论。 总结你的判断，而不是简单重复。“因此，尽管功利主义提供了一个明确的解决方案，但它要求我们忽略一项根本的道德禁令。”
12. Practise with Your Own Case | 用你自己的案例练习
Invent a short dilemma. Perhaps a friend wants to copy your homework, and the teacher will never know. Analyse it using utilitarianism (greatest good for greatest number?) and Kantian ethics (lying, fostering dishonesty). Or create a knowledge case: someone correctly guesses a lottery number in a dream — does that count as knowledge? Apply JTB and reliabilism.
自己编一个简短的困境。比如一位朋友想抄你的作业，而老师永远不会发现。用功利主义（最大多数人的最大善？）和康德伦理学（撒谎，助长不诚实）来分析它。或者编一个知识案例：有人在梦中猜中了彩票号码——那算不算知识？应用 JTB 和可靠主义。
The more you practise structuring case studies this way, the more natural it becomes. Record your answers, check them against the four‑step structure, and refine your evaluation language. This is the most efficient way to build confidence for Year 9 WJEC Philosophy assessments.
你越多地按照这种方式来构建案例分析，就会变得越自然。记录下你的答案，对照四段式结构进行检查，并打磨你的评估语言。这是建立对 WJEC 九年级哲学测评信心的最有效途径。
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