📚 Case Study Practical Exercises for CCEA Year 10 Philosophy | CCEA Year 10 哲学：案例分析实战演练
Welcome to a hands-on exploration of philosophical reasoning. In CCEA Year 10 Philosophy, case studies are your main tool for testing arguments, applying ethical theories, and examining religious and moral questions. This article provides eight carefully chosen cases with step-by-step guidance, designed to sharpen your analytical skills and deepen your understanding of key themes like the sanctity of life, justice, religious experience, and the problem of evil. Each case is introduced with a real-world scenario, followed by structured questions and model responses, making it an ideal revision companion for end-of-unit assessments and classroom debates.
欢迎来到哲学推理的实践探索。在 CCEA Year 10 哲学课程中，案例研究是检验论证、应用伦理学理论和考察宗教与道德问题的主要工具。本文提供了八个精心挑选的案例，并配以分步指导，旨在磨砺你的分析能力，加深你对生命神圣性、正义、宗教体验和恶的问题等核心主题的理解。每个案例先给出一个真实情境，接着是结构化问题和示范回答，使其成为单元评估和课堂辩论的理想复习伙伴。
1. What is Philosophical Case Study Analysis? | 什么是哲学案例分析？
A philosophical case study is a detailed examination of a real or imagined situation that raises deep questions about right and wrong, existence, knowledge, or faith. Unlike scientific case studies that seek empirical data, philosophical analysis focuses on clarifying concepts, evaluating arguments, and recognising hidden assumptions. In Year 10, you will encounter dilemmas where several ethical theories – such as Utilitarianism, Natural Law, or Situation Ethics – offer conflicting advice. Your task is not merely to describe the case but to reason through it, weighing evidence and reaching a justified conclusion.
哲学案例研究是对真实或虚构情境的详细考察，这些情境引发了关于是非、存在、知识或信仰的深层问题。与寻求实证数据的科学案例研究不同，哲学分析侧重于澄清概念、评估论证和识别隐藏的假设。在 Year 10，你会遇到一些两难困境，功利主义、自然法或情境伦理学等多种伦理理论会给出相互冲突的建议。你的任务不仅仅是描述案例，而是要运用推理来审视它，权衡证据并得出有理由支持的结论。
2. Structure of Moral Dilemmas | 道德困境的结构
Most moral dilemmas share a common structure: an agent must choose between two or more actions, each of which seems to violate some moral principle. To analyse such a dilemma, first identify the conflicting values or duties. Then apply different ethical frameworks. For example, a Utilitarian will ask, 'Which action produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number?' A follower of Natural Law might ask, 'Does this action respect the primary precept of preserving innocent life?' By comparing these perspectives, you can show how the same facts lead to different moral judgements.
大多数道德困境有一个共同的结构：行动者必须在两个或多个行动之间做出选择，而每一个似乎都违反了某些道德原则。要分析这样的困境，首先要识别出冲突的价值观或义务。然后应用不同的伦理框架。例如，功利主义者会问：“哪种行为能为最大多数人带来最大幸福？”自然法的追随者可能会问：“这一行为是否尊重保护无辜生命的基本戒律？”通过比较这些视角，你可以展示相同的事实如何导致不同的道德判断。
3. Case 1: The Trolley Problem | 案例一：电车难题
Scenario: A runaway trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people who are tied up and cannot move. You can pull a lever to divert the trolley onto a side track, but there is one person tied up on that track. Should you pull the lever?
情境：一辆失控的电车正沿着轨道冲向五个被绑住且无法移动的人。你可以拉动一根拉杆，将电车转到侧轨，但侧轨上绑着一个人。你应该拉下拉杆吗？
This case tests the difference between actively causing a death (killing) and passively allowing deaths (letting die). Utilitarians would pull the lever, as saving five lives at the cost of one maximizes overall well-being. A deontologist, following Kant’s categorical imperative, might refuse, arguing that using the one person merely as a means is always wrong. The doctrine of double effect, central to Natural Law, could also be invoked: pulling the lever intends to save the five, while the death of the one is a foreseen but unintended side effect. Discuss whether intention or outcome matters more in moral evaluation.
这个案例检验了主动导致死亡（杀人）与被动放任死亡（任其死亡）之间的区别。功利主义者会拉下拉杆，因为以一个人的代价拯救五个人能最大化整体福祉。遵循康德绝对命令的义务论者可能会拒绝，认为仅仅将那个人当作手段总是错误的。自然法的核心原则——双重效果原则也可援引：拉下拉杆的意图是拯救五人，而一人的死亡是可预见但非意图的副作用。请讨论在道德评估中，意图和结果哪个更重要。
Utilitarian principle: Act to maximise overall happiness.
功利主义原则：行动以使整体幸福最大化。
4. Case 2: Euthanasia and the Sanctity of Life | 案例二：安乐死与生命神圣性
Scenario: James, aged 72, suffers from an incurable and painful terminal illness. He is mentally competent and repeatedly asks his doctor to help him die peacefully. His family supports his wish, but the doctor faces legal and religious prohibitions against assisting suicide.
情境：詹姆斯，72岁，患有不治之症且痛苦不堪的绝症。他心智健全，多次请求医生帮助他平静地死去。他的家人支持他的愿望，但医生面临协助自杀的法律和宗教禁令。
This case brings into sharp focus the conflict between the sanctity of life and individual autonomy. In Natural Law ethics, the primary precept of preserving life means that euthanasia is always morally wrong, because it directly violates God’s design. By contrast, Situation Ethics, based on agape (unconditional love), might argue that refusing to relieve unbearable suffering is itself unloving. Utilitarians would weigh the decrease in James's suffering against any potential harm to others or to society's trust in doctors. A key question is whether there is a meaningful distinction between active euthanasia (a deliberate act to end life) and passive euthanasia (withdrawing life-sustaining treatment).
这一案例凸显了生命神圣性与个人自主权之间的冲突。在自然法伦理学中，保存生命的基本戒律意味着安乐死永远是道德上的错误，因为它直接违背了上帝的设计。相比之下，以“圣爱”（无条件的爱）为基础的情境伦理学可能会认为，拒绝对无法忍受的痛苦施以援手本身就是不善爱的表现。功利主义者会权衡詹姆斯痛苦的减轻与对他人或社会对医生信任的潜在伤害。一个关键问题是，主动安乐死（故意结束生命的行为）与被动安乐死（撤销维持生命的治疗）之间是否存在有意义的区别。
5. Case 3: Abortion and the Right to Life | 案例三：堕胎与生命权
Scenario: Maria, a 16-year-old, discovers she is pregnant after a sexual assault. She feels unable to raise a child and wishes to terminate the pregnancy. Her deeply religious parents oppose abortion on the grounds that the foetus is a human life with a right to life from conception.
情境：16岁的玛丽亚在一次性侵犯后发现自己怀孕了。她觉得自己无法抚养孩子，希望终止妊娠。她虔诚的父母反对堕胎，理由是胎儿从受孕起就是拥有生命权的人。
The core philosophical debate here concerns the moral status of the foetus. Is a foetus a person with full moral rights? Views range from ‘conception’ (the position of many Christians and Natural Law theorists) to ‘viability’ or ‘birth’. The argument from potentiality holds that even if a foetus is not yet a person, it has the potential to become one, which grants it a right to life. Pro-choice arguments often appeal to bodily autonomy: forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will violates her rights over her own body. Consider how different ethical theories resolve the tension between the mother’s rights and the foetus’s right to life, and reflect on whether hard cases like rape affect the moral reasoning.
这里的核心哲学辩论涉及胎儿的道德地位。胎儿是一个拥有完全道德权利的人吗？观点从“受孕那一刻”（许多基督徒和自然法理论家的立场）到“能活产”或“出生”不等。潜在性论证认为，即使胎儿还不是人，但它有成人的潜在可能，这赋予了它生命权。支持自主选择权的论证则常常诉诸身体自主权：强迫妇女违背其意愿继续怀孕，侵犯了她对自己身体的权利。思考不同的伦理理论如何解决母亲权利与胎儿生命权之间的张力，并反思像强奸这样的极端情况是否会影响道德推理。
6. Case 4: Just War – Drone Strikes | 案例四：正义战争——无人机袭击
Scenario: A government authorises a drone strike against a suspected terrorist leader hiding in a civilian neighbourhood. Intelligence suggests an attack is imminent, but the strike is likely to cause civilian casualties. Is such a strike morally justified?
情境：某政府授权对藏匿在平民区的一名疑似恐怖分子头目实施无人机袭击。情报显示一场袭击即将发生，但此次空袭很可能造成平民伤亡。这样的袭击在道德上是正当的吗？
This case asks you to apply the principles of Just War Theory, particularly jus in bello (right conduct in war): discrimination (targeting only combatants) and proportionality (the harm inflicted must not be excessive relative to the expected military advantage). A Utilitarian would calculate whether the lives saved by preventing the terrorist attack outweigh the civilian lives lost. A Christian pacifist, however, might reject all killing as contrary to Jesus’ teaching on non-violence and forgiveness. The doctrine of double effect could justify the strike if the intention is solely to neutralise the terrorist and the civilian deaths are a tragic but unintended and proportionate side effect. Discuss whether modern warfare makes the distinction between combatants and non-combatants impossible to maintain.
该案例要求你运用正义战争理论的原则，特别是“战时法”（战争中的正确行为）：区别对待（只以战斗人员为目标）和相称性（造成的伤害与预期的军事优势相比不得过度）。功利主义者会计算通过防止恐怖袭击而拯救的生命是否能超过损失的平民生命。而基督教和平主义者可能会拒绝一切杀戮，认为这违背了耶稣关于非暴力和宽恕的教导。双重效果原则可以为袭击辩护，前提是意图仅仅是消灭恐怖分子，而平民伤亡是悲剧性的、非意图的且相称的副作用。请讨论现代战争是否使得战斗人员与非战斗人员之间的区分无法维持。
7. Case 5: Environmental Ethics – Deforestation for Development | 案例五：环境伦理——为发展而砍伐森林
Scenario: A developing nation plans to clear a large area of rainforest to build homes and farmland for its growing population. The forest is home to indigenous tribes and thousands of unique species. Global environmental groups argue that the loss of biodiversity and increase in carbon emissions harm the whole planet.
情境：一个发展中国家计划清除大片雨林，为其不断增长的人口建造住房和农田。这片森林是土著部落和数千种独特物种的家园。全球环保组织认为，生物多样性的丧失和碳排放的增加将危害整个地球。
Environmental case studies often pit human interests against the intrinsic value of nature. A utilitarian approach might try to measure the economic benefits of development against the long-term ecological damage, but how do you weigh the interests of future generations or non-human species? Deep ecologists argue that nature has intrinsic worth, independent of its usefulness to humans. Religious perspectives, such as stewardship in Christianity, suggest that humans have a duty to care for creation, which would place strict limits on destruction. This case also touches on global justice: wealthier nations, which have already exploited their own resources, may be in a poor position to demand that poorer nations bear the cost of conservation. Analyse the conflicting principles of development, justice, and environmental responsibility.
环境案例研究常常将人类利益与自然的内在价值对立起来。功利主义方法可能试图衡量发展的经济效益与长期生态破坏之间的关系，但你如何权衡未来世代或非人类物种的利益？深层生态学家认为，自然具有内在价值，独立于其对人类的实用性。宗教观点，如基督教的管家职分，指出人类有责任关爱受造物，这将对破坏行为施加严格限制。该案例还涉及全球正义：已经开发了自身资源的富裕国家，可能没有资格要求较贫穷的国家承担保护环境的代价。请分析发展、正义和环境责任这些相互冲突的原则。
8. Case 6: The Moral Status of Artificial Intelligence | 案例六：人工智能的道德地位
Scenario: Scientists create an AI that passes every test for self-awareness, expresses a desire to learn, and shows fear of being switched off. Should such an AI be granted rights similar to human rights? You are asked to decide whether it is permissible to delete or experiment on this AI.
情境：科学家创造了一个人工智能，它通过了所有自我意识测试，表达了学习的愿望，并对被关闭表现出恐惧。这样的人工智能是否应被赋予类似于人权的权利？你被要求决定是否可以删除这个人工智能或对其进行实验。
This forward-looking case explores the boundaries of personhood. Many philosophical positions tie moral status to capacities like consciousness, rationality, and the ability to suffer. If an AI exhibits these, some argue that it deserves moral consideration, perhaps through a version of utilitarianism where its suffering matters. Others, drawing on religious views of the soul, may insist that only beings created by God can possess a soul and therefore full moral worth. A key question is whether rights depend on biology or on function. The case also tests our consistency: if we grant rights to AI on the basis of capacities, what does that imply for non-human animals or humans with limited capacities? Reflect on the criteria for personhood and whether they should be applied functionally or metaphysically.
这个前瞻性的案例探索了人格的边界。许多哲学立场将道德地位与意识、理性和感受痛苦的能力等特性联系起来。如果人工智能表现出这些特性，一些人认为它应该得到道德考量的考量，或许通过功利主义的某种形式，使其痛苦具有意义。另一些人则依据关于灵魂的宗教观点，可能坚持认为只有上帝创造的生物才拥有灵魂，从而拥有完全的道德价值。一个关键问题是，权利究竟取决于生物学还是功能。该案例也检验了我们的连贯一致性：如果我们基于能力赋予人工智能权利，这对非人类动物或能力有限的人类意味着什么？反思人格的标准，以及这些标准应该从功能上还是形而上学的角度来应用。
9. Case 7: The Authenticity of Religious Experience | 案例七：宗教体验的真实性
Scenario: Lucy claims that during a time of deep personal crisis, she felt a powerful presence, heard a voice telling her 'Do not be afraid', and experienced an overwhelming sense of peace. She believes it was a direct encounter with God. Her atheist friend Alex argues that it was merely a psychological coping mechanism triggered by stress.
情境：露西声称，在一次深刻的个人危机中，她感受到一种强大的临在，听到一个声音对她说“不要害怕”，并体验到一种压倒性的平安。她相信那是与上帝的直接相遇。她的无神论者朋友亚历克斯认为，那不过是压力触发的心理应对机制。
This case introduces the debate over religious experience as evidence for God’s existence. William James argued that such experiences are noetic (imparting knowledge), transient, passive, and ineffable, and that they can be judged by their fruits – whether they lead to positive moral transformation. A sceptic might use the principle of testimony: we should not accept extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. Furthermore, neuroscientific explanations face the ‘God helmet’ challenge, which suggests that religious feelings can be artificially induced. However, pointing out a physical correlate does not prove that the experience is only physical – just as a brain state during seeing a tree does not prove the tree is an illusion. The challenge is to weigh the sincerity and life-changing impact of Lucy’s experience against naturalistic explanations, and to consider whether cumulative arguments from multiple witnesses strengthen the case for a transcendent reality.
这个案例引入了关于宗教体验作为上帝存在证据的辩论。威廉·詹姆斯认为，这类体验是知性的（传递知识）、短暂的、被动的和不可言喻的，并且可以通过其果实——是否带来积极的道德转变——来判断。怀疑论者可能运用见证原则：没有非凡的证据，我们就不能接受非凡的主张。此外，神经科学的解释面临着“上帝头盔”的挑战，它表明宗教感受可以被人工诱导。然而，指出生理相关物并不能证明体验仅仅是生理性的——就像看见一棵树时的大脑状态并不能证明树是幻觉一样。挑战在于权衡露西体验的真诚性和改变人生的影响与自然主义解释之间的轻重，并考虑多个见证者的累积论证是否能加强超验现实存在的理由。
10. Case 8: Evil and the Existence of God | 案例八：恶与上帝的存在
Scenario: Following a devastating earthquake that kills thousands of innocent children, a believer struggles with the question: 'If God is all-powerful and all-loving, why does He allow such suffering?' This is the classic problem of evil, often formulated as the inconsistent triad: God is omnipotent, God is wholly good, and yet evil exists.
情境：在一场夺去数千名无辜儿童生命的地震之后，一位信徒苦苦思索：“如果上帝是全能和全爱的，为什么祂会允许这样的苦难存在？”这就是经典的恶的问题，常被表述为不一致的三元组：上帝全能、上帝全善，然而恶却存在。
The logical problem of evil asserts that these three statements cannot all be true. The free will defence, proposed by Alvin Plantinga, argues that moral evil results from the misuse of human freedom, which is a greater good that an omnipotent God could not create without allowing the possibility of evil. For natural evil (like earthquakes), some theologians argue that they are a consequence of a fallen world or part of a natural order that makes moral growth possible. John Hick's soul-making theodicy suggests that suffering builds virtues like compassion and courage. Alternatively, process theology weakens the idea of omnipotence, portraying God as a persuasive force who suffers with creation but cannot coercively prevent evil. Your analysis must explain which theodicy is most compelling and whether it successfully defends belief in a loving God.
恶的逻辑问题断言这三句话不可能同时为真。阿尔文·普兰丁格提出的自由意志辩护认为，道德恶是滥用人类自由的结果，而这自由是一种更大的善，全能的神若不允许恶的可能性，便无法创造这种善。对于自然恶（如地震），一些神学家认为它们是堕落世界的后果，或是使道德成长成为可能的自然秩序的一部分。约翰·希克的灵魂塑造神义论指出，苦难能塑造同情心和勇气等美德。另外，过程神学弱化了全能的概念，将上帝描绘成一股有说服力的力量，与受造物一同受苦，但不能强制性地阻止恶。你的分析必须解释哪种神义论最有说服力，以及它是否成功地捍卫了信仰一位慈爱上帝的信心。
11. How to Write a Case Analysis Report | 如何撰写案例分析报告
A strong case analysis follows a clear structure. Begin with an introduction that identifies the central ethical or philosophical question. Then present the relevant facts without bias. Next, apply at least two ethical theories or perspectives in turn, explaining the reasoning behind each and noting the strengths and weaknesses of their conclusions. Use a comparative table to highlight differences:
一份出色的案例分析遵循清晰的结构。开头写一段引言，指出核心的伦理或哲学问题。然后不带偏见地陈述相关事实。接下来，依次应用至少两种伦理理论或观点，解释其背后的推理，并指出其结论的长处和弱点。可用比较表突出差异：
| Theory / 理论 | Key Principle / 核心原则 | Conclusion / 结论 |
|---|---|---|
| Utilitarianism / 功利主义 | Greatest happiness / 最大幸福 | Act to maximise overall well-being / 行动以实现整体福祉最大化 |
| Natural Law / 自然法 | Preserve innocent life / 保护无辜生命 | Never directly kill an innocent / 绝不直接杀害无辜者 |
After applying the theories, provide your own reasoned judgement, acknowledging counterarguments and explaining why one approach is more convincing in this case. End with a concise conclusion that ties together your analysis. Remember, philosophy is about the quality of your reasoning, not just the conclusion you reach.
在应用理论之后，给出你自己经过推理的判断，承认反方论点，并解释为什么在这个案例中某种方法更有说服力。最后用简洁的结论收尾，将你的分析串联起来。请记住，哲学重在推理的质量，而不仅仅是你得出的结论。
12. Common Mistakes and Tips | 常见错误与建议
Many students lose marks by simply retelling the case or describing theories without applying them to the specific facts. Always link abstract principles to concrete details. Avoid relativist conclusions like 'everyone is entitled to their opinion' – you must justify your view with reasons. Another pitfall is treating religious and secular perspectives as monolithic; there are diverse Christian views on war and diverse utilitarian views on animal ethics. Use phrases like 'Some Christians argue...' or 'A preference utilitarian might say...' to show nuance. Finally, practise under timed conditions: outline your answer in 5 minutes, write for 20, and leave 5 minutes for review. This builds the discipline needed for your CCEA assessments.
许多学生因仅仅复述案例或描述理论而没有将其应用于具体事实而失分。始终要将抽象原则与具体细节联系起来。避免“每个人都有权持己见”这类相对主义的结论——你必须用理据来证明你的观点。另一个陷阱是将宗教和世俗观点视为铁板一块；关于战争，基督徒内部有多种观点，关于动物伦理，功利主义内部也有多种观点。使用“一些基督徒认为……”或“一位偏好功利主义者可能会说……”这类措辞以体现细微差别。最后，在限时条件下练习：用5分钟列出纲要，20分钟写作，留5分钟检查。这能培养你应对CCEA评估所需的纪律性。
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