📚 AQA Philosophy Year 10: Key Arguments & Concepts Handbook | AQA 哲学 Year 10：论点与概念速查手册
Philosophy is not a subject of equations, but a discipline of structured reasoning. In Year 10 AQA Philosophy, we treat arguments as our ‘formulae’ — they follow logical patterns that can be examined, memorised, and applied. This handbook collects the essential argument structures, definitions, and conceptual frameworks you need to master for your assessments, presented in a compact and revision-friendly style.
哲学不是一门充满公式的学科，而是一种讲究结构推理的学问。在 Year 10 AQA 哲学课程中，我们把论证视为我们的“公式”——它们遵循逻辑模式，可以检验、记忆并加以应用。这份速查手册汇集了考试必备的核心论证结构、定义和概念框架，以简洁、便于复习的形式呈现。
1. The Tripartite Definition of Knowledge | 知识的三重定义
Knowledge is traditionally analysed as Justified True Belief (JTB). A person S knows that proposition P if and only if:
知识传统上被分析为“被证成的真信念”（JTB）。一个人 S 知道命题 P，当且仅当：
(1) P is true — P 为真；(2) S believes that P — S 相信 P；(3) S is justified in believing that P — S 有理由相信 P。
This formula faces the Gettier problem, where a belief can be true and justified merely by luck. A classic counterexample: Smith believes ‘the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket’ based on strong evidence, but the belief turns out true because he himself (unbeknownst to him) gets the job and has ten coins. This shows JTB is insufficient for knowledge.
这一定义面临盖梯尔问题的挑战：一个信念可以仅仅是靠运气而同时为真且得到证成。一个经典反例：史密斯基于有力证据相信“那个会得到工作的人口袋里有十枚硬币”，但信念最终为真是因为他自己（他本人不知道）得到了这份工作并且口袋里恰好有十枚硬币。这表明 JTB 不足以构成知识。
2. Rationalism vs. Empiricism | 理性主义 vs. 经验主义
Rationalism claims that reason is the primary source of knowledge, and we can have innate ideas. Key figure: Descartes, who argued ‘I think, therefore I am’ (Cogito ergo sum) is known a priori, independently of sense experience.
理性主义主张理性是知识的主要来源，我们可以拥有天赋观念。代表人物：笛卡尔，他论证“我思故我在”（Cogito ergo sum）是先天可知的，不依赖于感官经验。
Empiricism holds that all knowledge comes from sensory experience. Locke argued the mind is a tabula rasa (blank slate) at birth, and all concepts are derived from sense impressions and reflection. Hume further divided knowledge into ‘relations of ideas’ (a priori, e.g., mathematics) and ‘matters of fact’ (a posteriori).
经验主义认为所有知识都来自感官经验。洛克主张心灵在出生时是一块“白板”（tabula rasa），所有概念都来源于感觉印象和反省。休谟进一步将知识划分为“观念的关系”（先天，如数学）和“事实”（后天）。
3. The Design Argument (Teleological) | 设计论证（目的论）
The argument from design states that the complexity and apparent purpose in nature suggest an intelligent designer. Paley’s watchmaker analogy: if you find a watch on a heath, you infer a watchmaker because its parts are arranged for a purpose. Similarly, the eye — with its intricate parts working together for sight — implies a divine designer.
设计论证指出，自然界的复杂性和明显的目的性暗示着一位智慧设计者。佩利的钟表匠类比：如果你在荒野中发现一块手表，你会推断有一位钟表匠存在，因为它的零件被安排得井井有条以实现计时目的。同样地，眼睛——其精密部件协同运作以实现视觉——暗示着一位神圣设计者。
Hume’s criticisms: (1) The analogy between natural objects and human artefacts is weak; (2) The universe might be more like a living organism than a machine; (3) Even if a designer exists, the argument cannot prove it is the God of classical theism. The problem of evil further questions a benevolent designer.
休谟的批评：（1）自然物与人造物之间的类比不够有力；（2）宇宙可能更像一个有机体而非机器；（3）即使存在一位设计者，这个论证也无法证明它就是古典有神论的上帝。而恶的问题进一步质疑了一位仁慈设计者的存在。
4. The First Cause Argument (Cosmological) | 第一因论证（宇宙论）
Everything that begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore, the universe has a cause, and that cause is God. Aquinas presented the ‘Second Way’ as an argument from efficient causation: if we trace causes backwards, we cannot have an infinite regress, so there must be a first uncaused cause.
凡开始存在的事物都有其原因；宇宙开始存在；因此宇宙有一个原因，而这个原因就是上帝。阿奎那以“第二路”提出了由动力因出发的论证：如果我们追溯过去的原因，不可能有无限回溯，因此必须有一个最初的不被引发的第一因。
Criticisms: Why must the first cause be God? It could be a natural first event. Also, Hume and Russell suggest the universe itself could be a brute fact requiring no explanation. The possibility of an infinite regress is still debated.
批评：为什么第一因必须是上帝？它可能只是一个最初的自然事件。此外，休谟和罗素认为宇宙本身可能就是一个无需解释的粗野事实。无限回溯的可能性仍在争论中。
5. The Problem of Evil (Logical & Evidential) | 恶的问题（逻辑性与证据性）
The logical problem of evil argues that the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God is logically incompatible with the existence of evil. The inconsistent triad: God is all-powerful, God is all-loving, yet evil exists. If God cannot prevent evil, He is not omnipotent; if He can but does not, He is not all-loving.
逻辑性恶的问题论证，一位全能、全善的上帝的存在与恶的存在在逻辑上不相容。不一致三元组：上帝是全能的，上帝是至爱的，但恶依然存在。如果上帝无法阻止恶，他就不是全能的；如果他能阻止但不去阻止，他就不是全爱的。
The evidential problem points to the sheer amount and distribution of pointless suffering. Rowe’s fawn example: a fawn trapped in a forest fire suffers terribly for days before dying, with no apparent greater good resulting. This seems strong evidence against a benevolent God.
证据性恶的问题则指向无谓苦难的数量和分布。罗的小鹿例子：一只小鹿被森林大火困住，在死前痛苦地挣扎了多日，并没有产生任何明显的更大善果。这似乎是针对仁慈上帝的强有力证据。
Responses: The free will defence (evil results from misuse of free will, and free will is a greater good); soul-making theodicy (suffering helps develop virtues); the idea that God’s ways are beyond human understanding.
回应：自由意志辩护（恶源于对自由意志的滥用，而自由意志是更大的善）；灵魂塑造神义论（苦难有助于培养美德）；以及认为上帝之行远超人类理解的观点。
6. The Ontological Argument | 本体论论证
Anselm defines God as ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’. If this being exists only in the mind, we could conceive a greater being that exists in reality as well. Therefore, God must exist in reality; otherwise, he would not be the greatest conceivable being.
安瑟伦将上帝定义为“无法设想有比之更伟大者的存在”。如果这个存在只存在于思想中，那么我们还可以设想一个更伟大的、既存在于思想中也存在于现实中的存在。因此上帝必然存在于现实中，否则他就不是可设想的最伟大存在。
Gaunilo’s objection by parody: one could conceive of a ‘perfect island’, but that does not prove it exists. Anselm’s reply: the argument applies only to necessary beings, not contingent things like islands. Kant’s critique: existence is not a predicate (it does not add to the concept of a thing). To say ‘God exists’ merely posits that the concept is instantiated, but we cannot deduce existence from definition alone.
高尼罗的仿拟反驳：我们可以设想一个“完美的岛屿”，但这并不能证明它存在。安瑟伦的回应：该论证只适用于必然存在者，而非像岛屿那样的偶然事物。康德的批判：存在不是一个谓词（它不能给事物的概念增加内容）。说“上帝存在”仅仅是断定这概念被例示了，但我们无法仅从定义中推演出存在。
7. Mind-Body Dualism | 心身二元论
Substance dualism (Descartes): the mind is a non-physical substance distinct from the body. The argument from indivisibility: the body is divisible, but the mind cannot be divided into parts; therefore, they must be different substances. The argument from conceivability: I can clearly and distinctly conceive of myself as a thinking thing without a body; God can create whatever I clearly and distinctly conceive; so mind and body can exist separately.
实体二元论（笛卡尔）：心灵是与身体不同的非物理实体。不可分性论证：身体可分割，但心灵不能被分割为部分；因此它们必定是不同的实体。可设想性论证：我能清楚分明地设想自己是一个无身体的思维之物；上帝能创造我清楚分明设想的任何事物；所以心灵与身体可以分别存在。
Problems: the interaction problem (how can a non-physical mind cause physical movements?), the problem of other minds (how do I know other people have minds?), and the dependence of mental functions on brain states shown by neuroscience.
难题：互动问题（非物理的心灵如何引起物理运动？），他人之心问题（我如何知道他人有心灵？），以及神经科学所显示的心智功能对大脑状态的依赖。
8. Utilitarianism: The Greatest Happiness Principle | 功利主义：最大幸福原则
Bentham’s act utilitarianism: an action is right if it produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number. The hedonic calculus weighs seven factors: intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, and extent.
边沁的行为功利主义：一个行为是正当的，当且仅当它为最大多数人带来最大幸福。快乐计算法衡量七个因素：强度、持续时间、确定性、远近、丰产性、纯度和广度。
Utility = Sum of (Pleasure - Pain) across all affected
功用 = 所有受影响者的（快乐减去痛苦）之和
Mill’s rule utilitarianism introduces higher and lower pleasures: ‘it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.’ Rules like ‘do not lie’ generally promote happiness, so they should be followed even if in a particular case lying would maximize utility.
密尔的规则功利主义引入了高级和低级快乐：“宁做不满足的人，不做满足的猪；宁做不满足的苏格拉底，不做满足的傻瓜。”像“不说谎”这样的规则通常促进幸福，因此即使在某些特定情况下说谎会最大化功用，也应该遵循这些规则。
9. Kantian Ethics: The Categorical Imperative | 康德伦理：定言命令
Formula of Universal Law: ‘Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.’ Test a maxim by asking: could I rationally will that everyone acts on it? If not, it is impermissible.
普遍法则公式：“只按照你同时能够愿意它成为一条普遍法则的那个准则去行动。”检验一条准则：我能不能理性地愿意所有人都按此行动？如果不能，这条准则就是不允许的。
Formula of Humanity: ‘Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.’ Using people merely as tools violates their rational autonomy.
人性公式：“你要这样行动，永远都把你人格中的人性以及每个他人人格中的人性同时用作目的，而决不只是用作手段。”仅仅将人当作工具，违反了他们的理性自律。
Kant argues that moral worth comes from acting from duty, not from inclination. A shopkeeper who charges fair prices merely to keep customers acts on inclination, not moral duty.
康德主张，道德价值来源于出于义务而行动，而非出于爱好。一个店主仅仅为了留住顾客而公平定价，是出于爱好而行动，而非出于道德义务。
10. The Free Will Defence (Alvin Plantinga) | 自由意志辩护（普兰丁格）
Plantinga’s response to the logical problem of evil: it is possible that even an omnipotent God could not create a world with free creatures that never choose evil. A world with free agents and moral good is better than a world with no free agents, even if it brings moral evil. Therefore, God’s existence is logically compatible with evil.
普兰丁格对逻辑性恶的问题的回应：有可能即使全能的上帝也无法创造一个拥有自由受造物却从不选择恶的世界。一个拥有自由行动者并实现道德之善的世界，要优于一个没有自由行动者的世界，即使它会带来道德之恶。因此上帝的存在与恶在逻辑上相容。
The defence only addresses logical possibility, not the evidential problem. It also assumes libertarian free will (free choice requires the ability to do otherwise) and rejects the idea that God could have made us free yet always choosing good.
这一辩护只针对逻辑可能性，并未解决证据性问题。它还预设了自由意志的自由主义立场（自由选择要求有能力做其他选择），并且拒绝了上帝本可以创造我们总是自由地选择善的说法。
11. Plato’s Analogy of the Cave | 柏拉图的洞穴比喻
Prisoners chained in a cave see only shadows on a wall, believing them to be reality. One prisoner escapes, sees the fire inside the cave and eventually the sun outside, representing the Form of the Good. Upon returning, he is ridiculed. The analogy illustrates the journey from ignorance to knowledge of the Forms, and the philosopher’s duty to return and enlighten others.
洞穴中锁住的囚徒只能看到墙上的影子，并认为那就是真实。一个囚徒挣脱束缚，看见了洞中的火光，最终看到了洞外的太阳，这太阳代表善的理型。他返回洞中时却遭到嘲笑。这个比喻描绘了从无知到理型知识的旅程，以及哲人返回并启迪他人的责任。
The Forms are eternal, unchanging, perfect concepts (e.g., Justice itself, Beauty itself) that exist independently of the physical world. Particular objects only participate in or imitate the Forms. This ties into Plato’s rationalism: true knowledge is of the Forms, grasped by reason, not senses.
理型是永恒、不变、完美的概念（如正义本身、美本身），独立于物理世界而存在。具体的个别事物只是分有或模仿了理型。这与柏拉图的理性主义相连：真正的知识是关于理型的，由理性而非感官把握。
12. Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics | 亚里士多德的美德伦理
Aristotle focuses on character rather than rules or consequences. The function argument: a good human is one who performs the function of a human well, and that function is rational activity. Virtue (arete) is a state of character that enables one to perform this function excellently.
亚里士多德关注品格而非规则或后果。功能论证：一个好的人就是良好地执行人的功能的人，而这功能就是理性活动。德性（arete）是使人卓越地执行这一功能的品质状态。
The Doctrine of the Mean: each virtue lies as a mean between two vices — one of excess and one of deficiency. For example, courage is the mean between cowardice (deficiency) and rashness (excess). The mean is relative to us and determined by practical wisdom (phronesis).
中道学说：每种德性都是两个极端之间的中道——一端是过度，一端是不及。例如，勇敢是怯懦（不及）和鲁莽（过度）之间的中道。中道是相对于我们而言，并由实践智慧（phronesis）来决定。
Eudaimonia = flourishing through rational activity in accordance with virtue
幸福（Eudaimonia）= 通过符合德性的理性活动而达致昌盛
Unlike utilitarianism, virtue ethics does not provide a decision procedure; it asks, ‘What would a virtuous person do?’ It also faces the guidance problem and the issue of cultural relativity of virtues.
与功利主义不同，美德伦理不提供一套决策程序；它问的是：“一个有德性的人会怎么做？”它同样面临指导性缺失的问题，以及德性的文化相对性问题。
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