📚 Case Study Practical Exercises | 案例分析实战演练
Case studies are central to Year 11 CIE Philosophy. They transform abstract theories into tangible dilemmas, testing your ability to identify philosophical issues, apply concepts, and construct reasoned arguments. This article provides a series of practical exercises across key branches of the syllabus, complete with step-by-step analysis demonstrations. Use them to sharpen your critical thinking and essay skills ahead of the exam.
案例分析是 Year 11 CIE 哲学的核心环节。它们将抽象理论转化为具体的两难情境，检验你识别哲学问题、应用概念并构建合理论证的能力。本文提供了一系列覆盖大纲主要分支的实战练习，并配有分步分析示范。用它们来锤炼你的批判性思维和论文写作技巧，迎接考试。
1. How to Approach a Case Study | 如何应对案例分析
Begin by reading the scenario carefully and underlining the central dilemma. Ask yourself: What is the philosophical issue at stake? Is it ethical, metaphysical, epistemological, or political? Next, identify which theories or philosophers are relevant. For an ethical case, you might consider utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics. Then, apply each theory to the facts, noting strengths and weaknesses. Finally, reach a justified conclusion. Never merely describe—evaluate throughout.
首先仔细阅读情境，划出核心困境。问自己：这里涉及什么哲学问题？是伦理学、形而上学、认识论还是政治哲学？接着，确定哪些理论或哲学家相关。对于伦理案例，你可能需要考虑功利主义、义务论和美德伦理。然后，将每种理论应用于事实，记录优点和弱点。最后，得出有理由支撑的结论。切勿仅仅描述——全程进行评估。
2. The Trolley Problem: Utilitarianism vs. Deontology | 电车难题：功利主义与义务论
Case scenario: A runaway trolley is heading toward five workers on the track. You can pull a lever to divert it onto another track, killing one worker instead. Should you pull the lever?
案例情境：一辆失控的有轨电车冲向轨道上的五名工人。你可以拉动拉杆让电车转到另一条轨道上，但这会撞死另一轨道上的一名工人。你应该拉动拉杆吗？
Utilitarian analysis: Since the action maximises overall well-being (saving five at the cost of one), pulling the lever is morally obligatory. Bentham's calculus supports this: five lives produce more pleasure and less pain than one. However, a rule utilitarian might ask whether a rule permitting such trade-offs would lead to better consequences long-term.
功利主义分析：由于该行为最大化了总体福祉（牺牲一人拯救五人），拉动拉杆在道德上是必须的。边沁的计算支持这一点：五条生命带来比一条生命更多的快乐、更少的痛苦。然而，规则功利主义者可能会问：允许这种权衡的规则是否会在长期带来更好的后果。
Deontological analysis: Kant's categorical imperative forbids using a person merely as a means. Pulling the lever uses the lone worker as a means to save others, violating their rational autonomy. Thus, pulling the lever is impermissible. Instead, we must treat humanity always as an end in itself.
义务论分析：康德的定言命令禁止仅仅把人当作手段。拉动拉杆把那个单独的工人当作拯救他人的手段，侵犯了他的理性自主。因此，拉动拉杆是不可允许的。相反，我们必须始终将人性作为目的本身来对待。
3. The Fat Man Variant: Active vs. Passive Killing | 胖子变体：主动与被动杀害
Case scenario: This time, you are on a bridge above the track. The only way to stop the trolley from killing five is to push a large man off the bridge into the trolley's path. He would die, but the five would be saved. Should you push him?
案例情境：这次，你在轨道上方的桥上。阻止电车撞死五人的唯一方法是把身边一个体型庞大的男子推下桥，让他挡住电车。他会死，但五人得救。你应该推他吗？
Many who accept pulling the lever reject pushing the fat man. The doctrine of double effect distinguishes intended harm from merely foreseen harm. In the lever case, the one worker's death is a foreseen side-effect, not the intended means. Here, pushing makes the fat man's death the intended means, which many deontologists find more objectionable. Utilitarians, however, see no relevant moral difference: the outcome is identical. This case tests the coherence of our moral intuitions.
许多接受拉动拉杆的人拒绝推胖子。双重效果原则区分了意图造成的伤害和仅仅预见的伤害。在拉杆情境中，那个工人的死亡是预见的副作用，而不是意图的手段。而在这里，推下胖子使其死亡成为意图的手段，这被许多义务论者认为更不可接受。然而，功利主义者看不出任何道德上相关的差异：结果完全相同。这个案例检验了我们道德直觉的一致性。
4. The Experience Machine: Nozick's Challenge to Hedonism | 体验机器：诺齐克对快乐主义的挑战
Case scenario: Imagine scientists can hook you up to a machine that guarantees a lifetime of perfectly pleasurable experiences, while your body floats in a tank. You would believe all experiences are real. Would you plug in?
案例情境：想象科学家能将你连接到一台机器上，保证你终身体验完美的快乐，而你的身体则漂浮在容器中。你会相信一切体验都是真实的。你会接入吗？
Nozick uses this to argue against hedonistic utilitarianism, which identifies good with pleasure. Most people refuse to plug in, revealing that we value more than pleasure: we desire actual contact with reality, authentic relationships, and the freedom to act. This suggests that what makes life good is not merely mental states but living in genuine connection with the world.
诺齐克用这个思想实验反对将善等同于快乐的快乐主义功利主义。大多数人拒绝接入，这揭示出我们重视的不仅仅是快乐：我们渴望与现实的真实接触、真实的人际关系以及行动的自由。这表明使生活美好的不只是内在心理状态，而是与世界保持真实的联结。
5. The Ship of Theseus: Identity over Time | 忒修斯之船：历时同一性
Case scenario: Over a voyage, every plank of a famous ship is gradually replaced. At journey's end, not a single original plank remains. Is it still the same ship? Moreover, if someone reassembled all the discarded planks into a ship, which one is the true Ship of Theseus?
案例情境：在一次远航中，一艘著名木船的每一块木板都逐渐被更换。航程结束时，没有一块原装木板留下。它还是同一条船吗？此外，如果有人用所有换下的旧木板重新组装出一条船，哪一艘才是真正的忒修斯之船？
This case explores the problem of identity over time. Psychological continuity theories (in personal identity) face a similar puzzle. One solution is the spatio-temporal continuity view: identity is preserved through a continuous history of change. Thus, the gradually renovated ship retains identity. The reassembled ship, despite having the original material, lacks that continuity. But critics note our intuition that the original parts matter. For personal identity, this parallels debates between bodily and psychological criteria.
这个案例探讨了历时同一性问题。心理连续性理论（关于人格同一性）面临相似的困惑。一种解决方案是时空连续性观点：同一性通过连续的变化历史得以保存。因此，逐步翻新的船保持了同一性。而重新组装的船尽管拥有原装材料，却缺乏这种连续性。但批评者指出我们也有直觉认为原始部件很重要。对于人格同一性，这与肉身标准和心理标准之间的争论相呼应。
6. Brain in a Vat: Scepticism about the External World | 缸中之脑：关于外部世界的怀疑论
Case scenario: Imagine your brain has been removed and placed in a vat of nutrients, connected to a supercomputer that feeds it electrical impulses identical to those you normally receive. Your experience of reading this page would be indistinguishable from reality. How do you know you are not a brain in a vat?
案例情境：想象你的大脑被取出，放在一缸营养液中，连接到一台超级计算机，计算机向大脑传递与你通常接收的完全相同的电脉冲。你阅读这页纸的体验与现实无法区分。你如何知道自己不是一个缸中之脑？
This modern sceptical scenario challenges empirical knowledge. If our sense data could be entirely simulated, then any belief based on sense experience could be false. Descartes' evil demon and Russell's five-minute hypothesis raise similar worries. The challenge is to find a non-question-begging refutation. Externalists about knowledge might claim that as long as the belief-forming process is reliable in the actual world (even if we are in a vat), we still have knowledge. Others, like Putnam, argue that 'I am a brain in a vat' is self-refuting if meaning depends on causal connection to the world.
这个现代怀疑论情景挑战经验性知识。如果我们的感觉材料可以被完全模拟，那么任何基于感官经验的信念都可能是错误的。笛卡尔的恶魔和罗素的五分钟假说引发了类似的担忧。挑战在于找到一个不循环论证的反驳。知识的外在主义者可能主张，只要信念形成过程在真实世界（即使我们是在缸中）是可靠的，我们仍然拥有知识。其他人，如普特南，论证“我是一个缸中之脑”这句话如果意义依赖于与世界的因果联系，它就是自我反驳的。
7. The Mad Axeman: Freedom and Responsibility | 疯斧头手：自由与责任
Case scenario: A man with a severe mental disorder, believing he is commanded by voices, attacks a pedestrian. Afterwards he shows no remorse, insisting he had no choice. Is he morally responsible?
案例情境：一名患有严重精神障碍的男子，相信自己受声音的指令，袭击了一名行人。事后他毫无悔意，坚称自己别无选择。他在道德上负有责任吗？
Compatibilists might argue that even determined actions can be free if they flow from one's own desires and character, without external coercion. Here, the man's disorder impairs his rational capacity; his desire structure is distorted. Thus, he may not be fully responsible, as the action does not reflect his authentic self. Libertarians would emphasise the lack of alternative possibilities. Hard determinists would say responsibility is an illusion regardless of mental health, because all actions are causally determined. This case tests the boundary between moral agency and diminished capacity.
兼容论者可能主张，即使是被决定的行为，只要它来自个人的欲望和品格，没有外在胁迫，也可以是自由的。在这里，该男子的障碍损害了他的理性能力；他的欲望结构被扭曲。因此，他可能不负有完全的责任，因为该行为不反映他真实的自我。自由意志论者会强调缺乏其他可能选项。强硬决定论者则会说，无论心理健康状况如何，责任都是一种幻觉，因为一切行为都是因果决定的。这个案例检验了道德能动性与能力减损之间的界限。
8. The Runaway Car: Paternalism and Liberty | 失控汽车：家长主义与自由
Case scenario: A government proposes a law that automatically brakes all cars when exceeding the speed limit, overriding driver control. The aim is to eliminate speeding-related deaths. Would such a law be justified?
案例情境：政府提议一项法律，凡是超速的汽车都会自动刹车，覆盖驾驶员的操控。目的是消除所有与超速相关的死亡。这样的法律合理吗？
Mill's harm principle permits interference only to prevent harm to others. Speeding endangers other road users, so some regulation is justified. But the proposed law goes further: it completely removes individual choice for the person's own good, which is hard paternalism. Mill would argue that adults are the best judges of their own interests, and the freedom to take risks (within limits) is essential for personal development and autonomy. A compromise might involve warning systems rather than complete control, respecting liberty while enhancing safety.
密尔的伤害原则只允许为了防止对他人的伤害而进行干涉。超速危及道路上的其他人，所以一定的监管是合理的。但该提议法律走得更远：为了个人的自身利益完全取消了个人选择，这是强硬家长主义。密尔会论证说，成年人是自身利益的最佳判断者，承担风险的自由（在一定限度内）对于个人发展和自主至关重要。折中方案可能涉及预警系统而非完全控制，在尊重自由的同时提升安全性。
9. Cultural Practices: Relativism or Universal Rights? | 文化习俗：相对主义还是普遍权利？
Case scenario: In a remote community, a traditional ritual involves a form of bodily scarring for adolescents, performed without anaesthetic. The practice is deeply meaningful within their belief system, but outsiders condemn it as cruel and a violation of children's rights. How should we morally evaluate it?
案例情境：在一个偏远社区，一项传统仪式涉及对青少年进行某种身体烙印，且不使用麻醉。该习俗在他们的信仰体系中具有深刻意义，但外人谴责其为残忍行为，侵犯了儿童权利。我们应该如何从道德上评价它？
Cultural relativists argue that morality is determined by cultural norms; since the practice is accepted internally, it is morally permissible for that group. Critics point out that this implies no culture can ever be wrong, which leads to absurd consequences (e.g., Nazi culture). Moderate relativism allows some universal values like harm avoidance, but the threshold is debatable. A rights-based approach (e.g., from natural law) would argue that bodily integrity is a universal right that overrides cultural autonomy when the individual cannot consent meaningfully. The case forces a balance between tolerance and protecting vulnerable individuals.
文化相对主义者主张，道德由文化规范决定；既然该习俗在内部被接受，那么对该群体来说它在道德上就是允许的。批评者指出，这意味着任何文化都不会犯错，这会导致荒谬的后果（如纳粹文化）。温和的相对主义允许某些普遍价值，如避免伤害，但界限尚有争议。基于权利的方法（如自然法）会论证，身体完整性是一项普遍权利，当个体无法真正同意时，该权利凌驾于文化自主之上。这个案例要求在宽容和保护弱势个体之间求得平衡。
10. The Teletransporter: Personal Identity and Survival | 远程传送器：人格同一性与存活
Case scenario: A teletransporter scans your body and brain, destroying them in the process, and instantly recreates an exact copy on Mars. The copy has all your memories, personality, and physical characteristics. Would you step into it? Is the person on Mars you?
案例情境：一台远程传送器扫描你的身体和大脑，在此过程中将其摧毁，然后在火星上即时制造出一个精确的复制品。复制品拥有你所有的记忆、性格和身体特征。你会走进这台机器吗？火星上的那个人是你吗？
This Parfit-style case questions whether psychological continuity alone is sufficient for survival. Bundle theory says yes: the person on Mars is psychologically continuous with you, so you survive. Ego theory (or 'simple' view) requires the same underlying soul or subject, so stepping into the teletransporter would be death. Critics of psychological continuity note the problem of fission: what if the machine malfunctioned and left the original body intact while also creating a copy? Both cannot be you, revealing that identity is not a matter of 'all or nothing' but of degrees of connectedness. This influences debates on what we value in survival.
这个帕菲特式案例质疑心理连续性单独是否足以保证存活。束理论认为是的：火星上那个人与你心理连续，所以你幸存了。自我理论（或'简单'观点）要求拥有相同的基础灵魂或主体，因此走进传送器即死亡。心理连续性的批评者指出分裂问题：如果机器故障，在创建复制品的同时保留了原始身体呢？两者不可能都是你，这揭示出同一性并非"全有或全无"，而是存在关联程度。这影响了关于我们看重存活中什么的讨论。
11. The Poisoned Well: Environmental Ethics | 毒井：环境伦理
Case scenario: A factory has been secretly dumping toxic waste into the groundwater, causing serious health problems in a nearby village. The factory owners argue that shutting down the factory would cost hundreds of jobs and damage the local economy. What is the right course of action?
案例情境：一家工厂一直秘密向地下水中倾倒有毒废料，导致附近村庄出现严重健康问题。工厂主辩称，关闭工厂会损失数百个工作岗位并损害地方经济。正确的行动方针是什么？
Anthropocentric ethics weighs human interests: health vs. employment. A utilitarian would calculate the net happiness of closure versus continuance with pollution controls, and likely support closure if the health damage is severe. Deep ecology would focus on the intrinsic value of the ecosystem and the rights of non-human beings affected. A justice-based approach would highlight that the village likely did not consent to the risk, making the factory's action a violation of distributive justice. Polluter-pays principles demand that the factory compensate victims and clean up, rather than escaping liability.
人类中心主义伦理学权衡人类利益：健康与就业。功利主义者会计算关闭工厂与继续运营但控制污染所带来的净幸福，如果健康损害严重则很可能支持关闭。深层生态学则关注生态系统的内在价值和受到影响的非人类存有的权利。基于正义的方法会强调，村庄很可能并未同意承担风险，使得工厂的行为违反了分配正义。污染者付费原则要求工厂赔偿受害者并清理污染，而非逃避责任。
12. The Ring of Gyges: Why Be Moral? | 古各斯戒指：人为什么要道德？
Case scenario: Imagine you possess a ring that makes you invisible at will. With it, you could commit any crime without ever being caught. Why, then, should you act morally when you can gain so much by acting unjustly?
案例情境：想象你拥有一枚可以随意隐身的戒指。有了它，你可以犯下任何罪行而永远不会被抓住。那么，当你可以通过不公正行为获得如此多好处时，你为什么还要道德行事？
Glaucon's challenge to Socrates suggests that justice is merely a compromise between doing harm without suffering it and suffering harm without retaliating. If sanctions disappear, he argues, the rational person would act unjustly. Plato’s response is that justice is a state of the soul; the unjust person becomes enslaved to their desires and lacks inner harmony, making them worse off regardless of external rewards. Modern contractualists might say morality is a rational agreement we would all endorse behind a veil of ignorance. Psychological egoists deny even the possibility of truly altruistic motivation.
格劳孔对苏格拉底的挑战提出，正义仅仅是在伤害他人而不受报复与遭受伤害而无法报复之间的一种妥协。他论证说，如果制裁消除，理性的人就会行不义。柏拉图的回应是，正义是灵魂的某种状态；不义之人沦为欲望的奴隶，缺乏内在和谐，因此无论外在回报如何，其处境都更糟糕。现代契约论者可能说，道德是一种我们在无知之幕后都会赞同的理性协议。心理利己主义者则否认真正利他动机的可能性。
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