📚 Case Analysis Practical Exercises | 案例分析实战演练
In Year 10 CAIE Philosophy, students are required to apply ethical theories, epistemological concepts, and arguments from religion and science to real‑world or hypothetical scenarios. This practical guide offers eight classic case studies, each analysed through contrasting philosophical lenses, to help you develop critical analysis skills for your exams. Engage with these exercises to strengthen your understanding of key philosophical frameworks.
在 Year 10 CAIE 哲学课程中，学生需要将伦理理论、认识论概念以及来自宗教和科学的论证应用于现实或假设的情境。本实战指南提供了八个经典案例研究，每个案例都通过对比的哲学视角进行分析，以帮助你在考试中培养批判性分析能力。通过这些练习，加深你对关键哲学框架的理解。
1. The Trolley Problem: Utilitarianism vs. Deontology | 电车难题：功利主义与义务论的对决
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 to a side track, but there is one person tied up on that side track. Do you pull the lever?
一辆失控的电车正驶向绑着五个人的轨道，而你站在一个可以切换轨道的拉杆旁，但另一条轨道上绑着一个人。你会拉动拉杆吗？
From a utilitarian perspective, pulling the lever maximizes overall happiness by saving five lives at the cost of one. The action is morally right because it produces the greatest good for the greatest number.
从功利主义的角度看，拉动拉杆以牺牲一个人为代价挽救了五条生命，从而使整体幸福最大化。这种行为在道德上是正确的，因为它为最大多数人带来了最大的善。
A deontologist, following Kant's ethics, would argue that using the one person merely as a means to save the five is impermissible. We have a duty not to intentionally kill an innocent person, and pulling the lever would violate that categorical imperative.
遵循康德伦理学的义务论者则会认为，将那个人仅仅作为拯救五个人的工具是不允许的。我们有义务不故意杀害无辜之人，拉动拉杆会违反这条绝对命令。
Thus, the same case yields opposite conclusions depending on the ethical theory applied. This highlights the importance of justifying decisions based on consistent principles in your responses.
因此，同一个案例根据所应用的伦理理论会得出相反的结论。这凸显了在回答中基于一致的原则来证明决策合理性的重要性。
2. Gettier Cases: Is Justified True Belief Enough? | 盖梯尔案例：确证的真信念就够了吗？
Smith and Jones have applied for a job. Smith has strong evidence that Jones will get the job and also knows that Jones has ten coins in his pocket. Smith deduces the proposition: 'The man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket.' It turns out that Smith himself gets the job and, unbeknownst to him, he also happens to have ten coins in his pocket. So Smith had a justified true belief, but was it knowledge?
史密斯和琼斯申请了同一份工作。史密斯有强有力的证据表明琼斯会得到这份工作，并且还知道琼斯口袋里正好有十个硬币。史密斯由此推断出一个命题：“得到这份工作的人口袋里有十个硬币。”结果史密斯自己得到了工作，而他本人不知道的是，他口袋里也正好有十个硬币。因此史密斯拥有了一个经过确证的真信念，但这是知识吗？
In standard epistemology, knowledge was traditionally defined as justified true belief. However, Gettier cases demonstrate situations where a belief is justified and true, yet intuitively we do not count it as knowledge because the truth is disconnected from the justification.
在标准认识论中，知识传统上被定义为经过确证的真信念。然而，盖梯尔案例展示了一些情况，在这些情况下一个信念既是确证的又是真的，但直觉上我们不认为它是知识，因为真相与确证是脱节的。
In this case, Smith's belief was justified by the evidence about Jones, but it turned out to be true only because of a coincidence involving his own coins. Thus, the belief lacks the necessary connection between the justification and the fact.
在这个案例中，史密斯的信念是通过关于琼斯的证据得到确证的，但它之所以为真只是因为一个涉及他自己口袋硬币的巧合。因此，这个信念缺乏确证与事实之间的必要联系。
This challenges the traditional tripartite definition and encourages philosophers to seek a fourth condition, such as a reliable causal connection or no false lemmas.
这挑战了传统的三元定义，促使哲学家们寻找第四个条件，比如可靠的因果联系或不存在错误前提。
3. Paley's Watchmaker Analogy and the Evolutionary Critique | 佩利的钟表匠类比与进化论批判
Imagine finding a watch on a heath. Its intricate parts work together for a purpose (to tell time), so we infer a watchmaker. Similarly, the universe, with its complex order, implies an intelligent designer (God).
想象在荒野中发现了一块手表。它复杂的零件为了一个目的（报时）而协同工作，因此我们推断存在一位钟表匠。类似地，宇宙具有复杂的秩序，这暗示了一位智能设计者（上帝）。
The design argument (teleological argument) uses analogy: organisms and natural structures exhibit complexity and purpose, which cannot arise by chance. Therefore, a divine designer must exist.
设计论证（目的论论证）使用类比：生物体和自然结构展现出复杂性和目的性，这些不可能偶然产生。因此，必然存在一位神圣的设计者。
However, Hume's critiques question whether the analogy is valid: the universe might be more like a living organism than a machine. Moreover, even if a designer exists, it does not necessarily have the attributes of the God of classical theism.
然而，休谟的批判质疑这个类比是否有效：宇宙可能更像一个活的有机体而非机器。此外，即使存在设计者，它也不一定具有古典有神论中上帝的属性。
Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection provides a naturalistic explanation for apparent design, undermining Paley's inference. The complex adaptation of organisms can result from random variation and survival of the fittest over millions of years.
达尔文的自然选择进化论为明显的外观设计提供了一种自然主义的解释，从而削弱了佩利的推论。生物体的复杂适应可以源于数百万年间的随机变异和适者生存。
4. The Problem of Evil: The Logical Challenge to Omnibenevolence | 恶的问题：对全善属性的逻辑挑战
If God is all‑powerful, all‑knowing, and all‑good, why does pointless suffering exist? The intense pain of a child dying of cancer seems incompatible with a benevolent creator.
如果上帝全知、全能、全善，那么为什么会存在无谓的苦难？一个患癌垂死的孩子所承受的剧痛似乎与一个仁慈的造物主水火不容。
The logical problem of evil argues that the co‑existence of God and evil is logically impossible. Either God would remove evil but cannot (not omnipotent) or can but will not (not omnibenevolent).
恶的逻辑问题认为，上帝与邪恶共存是逻辑上不可能的。要么上帝想要消除邪恶但做不到（非全能），要么能做到但不愿意（非全善）。
Theodicies attempt to reconcile God and evil. The free will defence argues that genuine free will requires the possibility of moral evil, and a world with free beings who sometimes do evil is better than a world of automata.
神义论试图调和上帝与恶的存在。自由意志辩护主张，真正的自由意志必然包含道德之恶的可能性，一个拥有有时会作恶的自由个体的世界，比一个全是机械人的世界更好。
The evidential problem of evil focuses on the sheer amount and distribution of suffering, which seems excessive for any soul‑making purpose. This implies that the existence of such suffering makes God's existence less probable.
恶的证据问题侧重于苦难的巨量和分布，这似乎对于任何塑造灵魂的目的来说都过于庞大了。这表明此类苦难的存在降低了上帝存在的可能性。
5. Prisoner's Dilemma and Ethical Egoism | 囚徒困境与伦理利己主义
Two prisoners are separately interrogated. If both stay silent, each gets 1 year. If one betrays and the other stays silent, the betrayer goes free and the silent one gets 10 years. If both betray, each gets 5 years. What is the rational choice?
两名囚犯被分开审讯。如果都保持沉默，各判1年。如果一人背叛、另一人保持沉默，背叛者释放而沉默者判10年。如果两人都背叛，各判5年。理性选择是什么？
From a purely self‑interested (ethical egoist) perspective, each prisoner should choose betrayal because it yields a better outcome regardless of the other's choice. This leads to a suboptimal collective outcome (5 years each) compared to mutual cooperation (1 year each).
从纯粹自利（伦理利己主义）角度看，每个囚犯都应该选择背叛，因为无论对方怎么选，背叛的结果都更优。这导致了相对于相互合作（各1年）而言次优的集体结果（各5年）。
This dilemma challenges the idea that pursuing one's own interest always leads to the best overall outcome. It also illustrates the need for moral rules (like keeping promises) or social contracts to enable cooperation.
这个困境挑战了“追求自身利益总是带来最佳总体结果”的观点。它也说明了需要道德规则（如遵守承诺）或社会契约来实现合作。
A utilitarian approach might advocate a rule that maximises overall welfare through cooperation, while a Kantian might argue that we should act on maxims that could become universal laws (e.g., always stay silent to uphold trust).
功利主义方法可能倡导一种通过合作最大化整体福祉的规则，而康德主义者可能主张，我们应该按照能够成为普遍法则的准则行事（例如，总是保持沉默以维护信任）。
6. Brain in a Vat and Knowledge of the External World | 缸中之脑与外部世界的知识
Imagine your brain is removed and placed in a vat of nutrients, connected to a supercomputer that simulates all sensory experiences (the Matrix scenario). How can you know you are not a brain in a vat?
想象你的大脑被取出，放置在一个装营养液的缸中，连接到一台模拟所有感官体验的超级计算机（黑客帝国场景）。你如何知道自己不是一个缸中之脑？
This is a radical sceptical scenario. If you were a brain in a vat, all your experiences would be indistinguishable from reality, so you cannot have certainty about the existence of an external world.
这是一个彻底的怀疑论情景。如果你是一个缸中之脑，你所有的体验都将与现实无异，因此你无法确定外部世界的存在。
Descartes attempted to overcome scepticism with his 'Cogito ergo sum' ('I think, therefore I am'), proving the self's existence. However, proving the external world required reliance on a non‑deceptive God, which many find circular.
笛卡尔试图通过“我思故我在”来克服怀疑论，证明了自我的存在。然而，证明外部世界需要依赖一个不骗人的上帝，许多人认为这是循环论证。
Contemporary responses include Putnam's semantic externalism: if you were a brain in a vat, the words 'brain' and 'vat' would not refer to real brains and vats, so the statement 'I am a brain in a vat' is self‑refuting. However, this is still widely debated.
当代的回应包括普特南的语义外在论：如果你是一个缸中之脑，“脑”和“缸”这些词不会指代真实的脑和缸，因此“我是一个缸中之脑”这个陈述是自我反驳的。然而，这仍然存在广泛争议。
7. Virtue Ethics: Would a Virtuous Person Lie? | 美德伦理：一个有德之人会说谎吗？
Your friend asks you whether their new haircut looks good, and you honestly find it unattractive. Should you tell the truth or a white lie to spare their feelings?
你的朋友问你他们的新发型是否好看，而你真的觉得不好看。你是应该说真话，还是说一个善意的谎言以免伤他们的感情？
Virtue ethics, rooted in Aristotle, focuses on the character of the agent. A virtuous person would act according to the mean between extremes. For honesty, the virtue is truthfulness, where one avoids boastfulness (excess) and false modesty (deficiency).
植根于亚里士多德的美德伦理关注行为者的品格。一个有德之人会按照两个极端之间的中道行事。对于诚实而言，美德是坦诚，避免夸耀（过度）和假谦虚（不足）。
In this scenario, a virtue ethicist would consider what a phronimos (person of practical wisdom) would do. They might find a tactful way to express the truth without causing unnecessary hurt, or they might decide that preserving a loving friendship requires a small deviation from complete honesty in that instance.
在这种情况下，美德伦理学家会考虑一个具有实践智慧的人会怎么做。他们可能会找到一种委婉的方式表达真相而不造成不必要的伤害，或者他们认为维系友爱的友谊需要在这种情况下略微偏离完全的诚实。
The focus is not on rule‑following or consequences alone, but on cultivating moral character and exercising practical judgement. There is no absolute rule 'never lie'; context matters.
重点不在于遵守规则或仅仅考虑后果，而在于培养道德品格和运用实践判断。没有“绝不说谎”的绝对规则；情境很重要。
8. Abortion: Right to Life vs. a Woman's Autonomy | 堕胎：生命权与女性的自主权
A debate arises about whether a woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy. Anti‑abortion advocates stress the foetus's right to life; pro‑choice advocates emphasise the woman's right to control her own body.
一场关于女性是否应该有权终止妊娠的辩论。反对堕胎者强调胎儿的生命权；支持选择权者强调女性支配自己身体的权利。
The anti‑abortion (pro‑life) position often appeals to the sanctity of life and the potential personhood of the foetus. From a deontological standpoint, killing an innocent human being is intrinsically wrong, regardless of the consequences.
反对堕胎（重生命）的立场通常诉诸生命的神圣性和胎儿作为潜在人格的资格。从义务论的角度看，杀害无辜的人类本身是错误的，无论后果如何。
The pro‑choice argument often rests on bodily autonomy: even if the foetus has a right to life, it does not automatically have the right to use the woman's body against her will (the famous violinist analogy by Judith Thomson). Forcing her to continue the pregnancy violates her self‑determination.
支持选择权的论证通常基于身体自主权：即使胎儿有生命权，它也并不自动拥有违背女性意愿使用她身体的权利（朱迪思·汤姆森著名的小提琴家类比）。强迫她继续怀孕侵犯了她的自决权。
Utilitarianism would assess the overall happiness and suffering. The well‑being of the woman and potentially the future child must be weighed. There is no single utilitarian verdict, as it depends on the specific circumstances and utility calculations.
功利主义会评估整体的幸福与痛苦。必须权衡女性以及潜在未来孩子的福祉。功利主义并没有唯一的裁决，因为这取决于具体情境和功利计算。
Published by TutorHao | Year 10 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