📚 Year 9 CCEA Philosophy: Case Study Practical Exercises | Year 9 CCEA 哲学：案例分析实战演练
In CCEA Year 9 Philosophy, one of the most valuable skills you can develop is the ability to analyse real-life and hypothetical scenarios through a philosophical lens. This article provides a masterclass in case study analysis, offering step-by-step guidance and practical exercises to help you apply ethical theories and logical reasoning. Whether you are tackling questions about morality, justice, or human nature, mastering the art of the case study will give you a solid foundation for success.
在 CCEA 九年级哲学课程中，培养用哲学视角分析现实或虚构情景的能力至关重要。本文为您提供案例分析方法精讲，通过逐步指导与实战演练，帮助您运用伦理学理论与逻辑推理。无论面对道德、正义还是人性问题，掌握案例分析的技巧将为您的学业打下坚实基础。
1. What is a Philosophical Case Study? | 什么是哲学案例分析？
A philosophical case study is a short, focused narrative that presents a moral or conceptual problem. Unlike experiments in science, these cases invite you to explore different viewpoints, question assumptions, and justify your conclusion using philosophical theories. Common topics include dilemmas about lying, stealing, fairness, and rights.
哲学案例分析是一个简短、聚焦的叙述，提出一个道德或概念难题。与科学实验不同，这类案例邀请你探索不同观点、质疑预设，并用哲学理论为你的结论进行辩护。常见主题包括说谎、偷窃、公平与权利等两难困境。
The key is not just to give your opinion, but to reason clearly and reference concepts like utilitarianism, deontology, or virtue ethics where appropriate.
关键在于不仅要给出个人观点，更要清晰推理，并恰当地引用功利主义、义务论或美德伦理等概念。
2. The Case Study Method: A Step-by-Step Guide | 案例分析方法：分步指南
To tackle any case study effectively, follow this four-step process: 1) Identify the ethical issue or central question. 2) List the possible actions and their consequences. 3) Apply at least two different ethical theories to analyse the situation. 4) Form a well-reasoned conclusion, acknowledging counterarguments.
要有效分析任何案例，请遵循四步法：1) 识别伦理问题或核心疑问。2) 列出可能的行动及其后果。3) 运用至少两种不同的伦理理论进行分析。4) 形成推理充分的结论，并承认反方论点。
Remember, philosophers often disagree, and your mark comes from the quality of your reasoning, not just the 'right' answer.
请记住，哲学家们常有分歧，你的得分在于推理的质量，而不只是一个“正确”答案。
3. Case Study 1: The Trolley Problem | 案例一：电车难题
Imagine a runaway trolley is heading down a track where five people are tied up and unable to move. You are standing next to a lever that can switch the trolley onto another track, but there is one person tied up on that side track. Do you pull the lever, sacrificing one to save five?
想象一辆失控的电车正冲向一条有五人被绑在铁轨上的轨道，他们无法动弹。你站在一个道岔旁，可以拉动拉杆让电车转入另一条轨道，但那条岔道上绑着一个人。你会拉动拉杆，牺牲一人救五人吗？
Utilitarian perspective: The greatest good for the greatest number suggests you should pull the lever, as saving five lives produces more happiness. Deontological perspective: Pulling the lever means actively causing someone's death, which may violate the principle that we should never use a person merely as a means.
功利主义视角：为最大多数人谋求最大善，这主张你应拉动拉杆，因为救五条命产生更多幸福。义务论视角：拉动拉杆意味着主动导致某人死亡，这可能违反了我们绝不能仅仅把人当作手段的原则。
4. Case Study 2: Heinz's Dilemma | 案例二：海因茨困境
A woman is dying from a rare disease. A pharmacist has discovered a drug that can cure her, but is charging ten times the cost of production. Her husband, Heinz, can only raise half the money. The pharmacist refuses to lower the price or accept delayed payment. Should Heinz break into the pharmacy and steal the drug to save his wife?
一位妇女因罕见疾病濒临死亡。药剂师发现了一种能治愈她的药物，却要价是生产成本的十倍。她的丈夫海因茨只能筹到一半的钱。药剂师拒绝降价或分期付款。海因茨应该闯入药房偷药救妻吗？
Using virtue ethics: Heinz's motive—love and loyalty—might be seen as virtuous. However, stealing is generally considered a vice. Deontology would likely forbid stealing because if everyone stole when they felt a need, trust in society would collapse. Utilitarianism might support stealing the drug because the happiness of saving a life outweighs the pharmacist's lost profit.
运用美德伦理：海因茨的动机——爱与忠诚——可被视为美德。然而，偷窃通常被视为恶习。义务论很可能会禁止偷窃，因为如果人人自认为有需要就去偷，社会信任将崩溃。功利主义可能支持偷药，因为拯救生命的幸福超过了药剂师损失的利润。
5. Case Study 3: The Lying Promise | 案例三：虚假承诺
Your friend asks you to promise to keep a secret about a harmless surprise party. Later, another friend directly asks if you are organising a party. If you tell the truth, you ruin the surprise; if you lie, you break a promise. What should you do?
你的朋友要求你承诺保守一个关于惊喜派对的无害秘密。随后，另一位朋友直接问你是否在组织派对。如果你说实话，就破坏了惊喜；如果你说谎，就违背了承诺。你该怎么做？
Kantian deontology: Lying is always wrong because it undermines the universal law of truth-telling. You could perhaps give an evasive answer without lying. Utilitarianism: A small white lie to create greater happiness for many people (the joy of the surprise) could be justified. This case tests the limits of absolute rules.
康德义务论：说谎永远是错的，因为它破坏了说实话的普遍法则。你或许可以给出一个回避性的回答而不说谎。功利主义：为许多人创造更大幸福（惊喜的欢乐）的小小善意谎言是合理的。这个案例检验了绝对规则的边界。
6. Case Study 4: Animal Testing | 案例四：动物实验
A medical research company claims that testing new drugs on animals is essential for developing cures for human diseases. Animal rights activists argue that causing suffering to sentient beings is never justified, even for human benefit. The case asks: under what circumstances, if any, is it morally permissible to use animals in research?
一家医学研究公司声称，在动物身上测试新药对于开发人类疾病疗法至关重要。动物权利活动者认为，给有感知的生物造成痛苦永远是不正当的，即使是为了人类利益。这个案例提问：在什么情况下（如果有的话），在研究中利用动物在道德上是允许的？
Utilitarian approach: Weigh the animal suffering against the potential to save thousands of human lives. If the net happiness is positive, testing may be permissible, provided animals are treated as humanely as possible. Rights-based approach: Animals have a right not to be used as mere resources. This view would reject almost all animal testing, advocating for alternative methods. This case highlights the conflict between consequentialist and rights-based ethics.
功利主义方法：权衡动物痛苦与拯救成千上万人类生命的潜力。如果净幸福为正，那么实验或许可允许，前提是尽可能人道地对待动物。权利导向的方法：动物拥有不被当作纯粹资源的权利。这一观点将拒绝几乎所有动物实验，提倡替代方法。这个案例凸显了结果论与权利伦理之间的冲突。
7. Case Study 5: Distributing a Donor Kidney | 案例五：捐献肾脏的分配
A donor kidney has become available, and five patients are on the waiting list. Patient A is a young child who has suffered since birth; Patient B is a brilliant scientist who could find a cure for cancer; Patient C is a 75-year-old community volunteer; Patient D is a single parent of three children; Patient E is a wealthy donor to the hospital. Who should receive the kidney and on what basis? Age, social utility, personal circumstances, or pure lottery?
有一枚捐献肾脏可供移植，等待名单上有五位患者。患者A是一个从小患病的幼童；患者B是一位可能找到癌症疗法的杰出科学家；患者C是一位75岁的社区志愿者；患者D是三个孩子的单亲家长；患者E是医院的富有捐助者。应该让谁获得肾脏，依据是什么？年龄、社会效用、个人境况、还是纯粹抽签？
John Rawls' theory of justice as fairness would ask us to decide behind a 'veil of ignorance', not knowing which patient we would be. This might lead to a system that focuses on medical need and urgency. Utilitarianism would calculate the greatest overall benefit: maybe Patient B, to save many future lives. This case demands a careful debate about what makes a distribution 'fair'.
约翰·罗尔斯的正义即公平理论要求我们在“无知之幕”后做决定，不知道自己会是哪一位患者。这可能导向一种基于医疗需要和紧迫性的制度。功利主义会计算最大整体利益：或许选择患者B，以拯救更多未来的生命。这个案例要求对什么使分配“公平”进行细致的辩论。
8. Applying Ethical Theories: A Quick Reference | 伦理理论应用：快速参考
Utilitarianism: Actions are right if they promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Focus on consequences. Deontology: Actions are right or wrong based on a set of rules or duties, irrespective of consequences. For Kant, never use people merely as a means. Virtue Ethics: What would a virtuous person do? Focuses on character and flourishing (eudaimonia).
功利主义：如果行动能为最大多数人带来最大幸福，则正确。关注后果。义务论：行动的正确与否基于一套规则或责任，无论后果如何。对康德而言，绝不能只把人当作手段。美德伦理：一个有美德的人会怎么做？关注品格与幸福（eudaimonia）。
When writing your case study analysis, explicitly name the theory you are using and explain how it applies. This shows high-level philosophical skill.
在撰写案例分析时，明确说出你使用的理论，并解释它如何适用。这将展示高水平的哲学技能。
9. Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them | 常见误区与避免方法
Pitfall 1: Giving a personal opinion without justification. Always support your view with reasoning and reference a theory. Pitfall 2: Ignoring counterarguments. A strong philosophical essay acknowledges and responds to the strongest objection. Pitfall 3: Treating all theories as equal without critique. You can argue that one theory is more convincing in the given context, and explain why.
误区一：只给出个人观点而无理论支撑。始终用推理和理论引用来支持你的观点。误区二：忽视反方论点。一篇有力的哲学文章应承认并回应最有力的反对意见。误区三：对所有理论一视同仁而不加评判。你可以论证某一理论在给定情境中更有说服力，并解释原因。
10. Practice Questions for You | 供你练习的问题
Now it's your turn. Try to answer these questions using the case study method: 1) Should a doctor lie to a patient to keep their spirits up if the truth might crush their hope? 2) Is it ever acceptable to hack a company's database to expose dangerous products? 3) If a self-driving car must choose between hitting a pedestrian or swerving and killing its passenger, what should it be programmed to do?
现在轮到你了。请尝试用案例分析方法回答这些问题：1) 如果真话可能会击垮患者的希望，医生是否应该对患者说谎以鼓舞其精神？2) 为了暴露危险产品而入侵公司数据库，是否可以被接受？3) 如果自动驾驶汽车必须在撞行人还是转向导致乘客死亡之间做出选择，它应该如何编程？
Write a short paragraph on each, applying at least two ethical theories. Consider the counterargument before stating your final view.
针对每个问题写一段话，至少运用两种伦理理论。在阐述最终观点之前，请考虑反方论点。
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