📚 AQA Year 12 Philosophy: Case Study Practice Drills | AQA 12年级哲学：案例分析实战演练
Welcome to this focused practice drill on case study analysis for AQA Year 12 Philosophy. This resource is designed to sharpen your ability to examine philosophical scenarios, evaluate arguments, and apply ethical and epistemological theories with precision. By engaging with real-world and hypothetical cases, you will deepen your understanding of core topics such as the definition of knowledge, moral dilemmas, the problem of evil, and the nature of consciousness. Each section presents a case study, guiding questions, and model analysis points to help you think critically and write effectively in exam conditions.
欢迎来到AQA 12年级哲学的案例分析专项演练。本文旨在提升你审视哲学情境、评估论证并精准应用伦理与认识论理论的能力。通过接触真实与假想案例，你将加深对知识定义、道德困境、恶的问题及意识本质等核心主题的理解。每个部分呈现一个案例、引导性问题及示范分析要点，帮助你在考试中批判性思考与有效写作。
1. The Gettier Problem: Challenging Justified True Belief | 盖梯尔问题：挑战确证的真信念
Smith and Jones have both applied for a job. Smith has strong evidence for the belief that 'Jones will get the job' and also that 'Jones has ten coins in his pocket'. From this, Smith deduces that 'The man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket'. Unexpectedly, Smith himself gets the job, and he also happens to have ten coins in his pocket, though he did not know this. Smith's belief is true and he has justification, but we hesitate to call it knowledge.
史密斯和琼斯都申请了一份工作。史密斯有充分证据相信“琼斯会得到这份工作”，也知道“琼斯的口袋里有十枚硬币”。由此他推导出“得到这份工作的人口袋里有十枚硬币”。出乎意料的是，史密斯自己得到了工作，并且他恰好口袋里也有十枚硬币，虽然他并不知道这一点。史密斯的信念是真的且有确证，但我们却不愿称之为知识。
Your analysis should identify the tripartite definition of knowledge (justified true belief) and explain why Gettier cases show that these three conditions are not sufficient. Explore the role of epistemic luck: Smith’s belief is true only by accident, which seems to undermine knowledge. You might discuss Nozick's tracking condition or the 'no false lemmas' response. The core skill is to pinpoint exactly where the traditional definition breaks down.
你的分析应指出知识的三元定义（确证的真信念）并解释为何盖梯尔案例表明这三个条件仍不充分。探讨认知运气的作用：史密斯的信念只是碰巧为真，这似乎削弱了知识。你可以讨论诺齐克的追踪条件或者“无虚假引理”回应。核心技能在于精准定位传统定义失效的环节。
2. 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 toward five people tied to the track. You can pull a lever to divert the trolley onto a side track, where one person is tied. Utilitarianism tends to favour pulling the lever because it maximises overall welfare (saving five at the cost of one). A deontological approach, however, may forbid using the one as a mere means, making pulling the lever morally impermissible.
一辆失控的电车冲向被绑在轨道上的五个人。你可以拉下拉杆让电车转向侧轨，那里绑着一个人。功利主义倾向于拉杆，因为它达到了总体福祉的最大化（牺牲一人拯救五人）。然而，义务论方法可能禁止仅仅将那一人当作手段，从而认为拉杆在道德上是不被允许的。
When writing an analysis, compare the two ethical frameworks precisely. For utilitarianism, calculate the net pleasure or preference satisfaction; mention act vs. rule utilitarianism. For Kantian ethics, apply the first formulation of the categorical imperative: can you will that the maxim of sacrificing one for many become a universal law? Also consider the second formulation: you must not treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always as an end, never merely as a means. Contextualise with the principles of W.D. Ross or Thomson's variations to deepen evaluation.
在撰写分析时，要精确比较两种伦理框架。对功利主义，计算净快乐或偏好满足；提及行动功利主义与规则功利主义的区别。对康德伦理学，应用定言命令的第一公式：你是否能意愿“为多人牺牲一人”这一准则成为一条普遍法则？还要考虑第二公式：你必须把人——无论是你自己还是他人——总是当作目的而不仅仅是手段。结合W.D.罗斯的原则或汤姆森的变体情境进行深化评价。
3. The Evil Demon Hypothesis: Radical Skepticism | 恶魔假说：激进怀疑论
at 2+3=5, and that he has a body. If such a demon exists, almost all our beliefs could be mistaken. How can we know anything with certainty? Descartes' response is the Cogito: 'I think, therefore I am'. Even if deceived, he must exist as a thinking thing to be deceived.
笛卡尔设想了一个强大而恶毒的恶魔，它向他灌输虚假的感官经验，使他错误地相信存在外部世界、2+3=5以及自己拥有身体。如果这样一个恶魔存在，我们几乎所有的信念都可能出错。我们怎么能确知任何事？笛卡尔的回应是“我思故我在”：即使受骗，他也必须作为一个思考物而存在。
Examine the structure of sceptical arguments: the possibility of systematic deception undermines empirical justification. Evaluate Descartes’ foundationalism: using indubitable beliefs as a base. Critically discuss whether the Cogito truly escapes the demon’s reach. Some argue that the Cogito presupposes a ‘self’ that persists through time, which the demon could fabricate. Others question whether 'I think' is even an inference. Link to contemporary epistemology: does contextualism or reliabilism offer better responses to external world scepticism?
考察怀疑论论证的结构：系统性欺骗的可能性削弱了经验确证。评价笛卡尔的基础主义：以不可怀疑的信念作为根基。批判性讨论“我思”是否真的逃脱了恶魔的魔掌。有人主张“我思”预设了一个在时间中延续的“自我”，而恶魔同样可以伪造这一体验。还有人对“我思”是否属于推论提出质疑。联系当代认识论：语境主义或可靠主义能否更好地回应外部世界怀疑论？
4. The Problem of Evil: Inconsistent Triad | 恶的问题：不一致三元组
The problem of evil challenges the existence of the God of classical theism. If God is omnipotent, He can prevent evil; if omniscient, He knows about evil; if omnibenevolent, He would want to prevent evil. Yet evil exists. J.L. Mackie formalised this as an inconsistent triad: these three propositions cannot all be true. To defend theism, one must deny or qualify at least one attribute of God or redefine what 'evil' means.
恶的问题挑战了古典有神论中上帝的存在。如果上帝全知，祂知道恶的存在；全能，祂能阻止恶；全善，祂会愿意阻止恶。然而恶却存在。J.L.麦基将此形式化为一个不一致三元组：这三个命题不可能皆为真。为有神论辩护，必须至少否定或限定上帝的一个属性，或重新定义“恶”的意思。
Analyse theodicies and defences. The free will defence argues that God gave humans genuine freedom, and some evil is a necessary consequence of this great good. The soul-making theodicy (Irenaeus, Hick) holds that evil helps us develop virtues. Examine evidential vs. logical problems: the logical problem claims inconsistency, while the evidential problem points to the sheer amount and distribution of suffering. Evaluate whether the free will response adequately addresses natural evil. Use the analogy of a parent allowing a child to touch a hot stove – is the parent 'all-loving'? Critically assess whether a perfect God would create a world with any evil at all.
分析神正论和辩护。自由意志辩护主张上帝赐予人类真正的自由，而某些恶正是这一伟大善的必然产物。灵魂塑造神正论（爱任纽、希克）认为恶帮助我们培养德性。检验证据性恶的问题与逻辑性恶的问题：逻辑问题指出不一致性，而证据问题指向苦难的绝对数量和分布。评估自由意志回应是否能充分处理自然之恶。使用父母允许孩子触摸热炉子的类比——这样的父母“全爱”吗？批判性评价一位完美的上帝是否会创造一个带有丝毫恶的世界。
5. Mary's Room: The Knowledge Argument | 玛丽的房间：知识论证
Philosopher Frank Jackson presents Mary, a brilliant neuroscientist who has spent her entire life in a black-and-white room, learning everything physical about colour vision. She knows all the physical facts about light wavelengths, retinal processes, and neural firings. When she is released and sees a red rose for the first time, she learns something new: what it is like to see red. Jackson argues that since she acquires new knowledge, physicalism is false because it cannot capture phenomenal consciousness and qualia.
哲学家弗兰克·杰克逊提出玛丽的案例：她是一位杰出的神经科学家，一生生活在一个黑白房间里，学会了关于颜色视觉的所有物理知识。她通晓关于光波长、视网膜过程和神经发放的全部物理事实。当她被释放并第一次看见一朵红玫瑰时，她学到了新东西：看见红色是什么感觉。杰克逊认为，因为她获得了新的知识，物理主义就是错误的，因为它无法涵盖现象意识与感受质。
To tackle this case study, distinguish between propositional knowledge (knowing-that) and ability/applied knowledge (knowing-how). Some physicalists respond that Mary only gains ability knowledge or acquaintance knowledge, not new propositional facts. The ‘ability hypothesis’ says she acquires skills like imagining and recognizing colours. The ‘phenomenal concept strategy’ claims she gains new concepts, not new facts. Analyse whether these responses preserve the completeness of physical knowledge. Evaluate also whether Mary’s new knowledge could be predicted from a complete physical description, or if it reveals an explanatory gap.
要解决这个案例，区分命题知识（知道“什么”）和能力/应用知识（知道“如何”）。一些物理主义者回应说，玛丽只获得了能力知识或亲知知识，而非新的命题事实。“能力假说”认为她获得了想象和识别颜色的技能。“现象概念策略”声称她获得了新概念，而非新事实。分析这些回应是否维护了物理知识的完整性。也评价从完整的物理描述中能否预测玛丽的新知识，抑或这揭示了一个解释鸿沟。
6. Applying Utilitarian Calculus in Real Cases | 在真实案例中应用功利计算
Consider a hospital scenario where five patients need different organ transplants to survive. A healthy passerby walks in for a check-up. A utilitarian calculation might suggest sacrificing the one to save the five, which, in theory, maximises utility. However, this horrifies us. Your task is to show why simple act utilitarianism fails here and how rule utilitarianism or other constraints might block the conclusion.
设想一个医院场景：五个病人需要不同的器官移植才能存活，此时一位健康路人走进来体检。功利计算可能建议牺牲那一个人来拯救五个人，这在理论上最大化功利。然而，这让我们深感恐惧。你的任务是说明为何简单的行动功利主义在此失效，以及规则功利主义或其他限制如何避免这一结论。
Analyse the concept of 'utility' and its measurement. Mill's higher and lower pleasures could be invoked, but the sanctity of life complicates hedonistic calculus. Introduce the 'rights objection': utilitarianism, especially act utilitarianism, fails to respect individual rights. Demonstrate how rule utilitarianism considers the long-term consequences of adopting a rule like 'doctors may kill innocents for organs', which would erode trust in the medical system and lead to worse overall consequences. Discuss whether utilitarianism can consistently incorporate side constraints or if it collapses into intuitionism. Use the example to practice evaluating the internal consistency of ethical theories.
分析“功利”的概念及其衡量。可援引密尔的高级快乐与低级快乐，但生命的尊严使快乐计算复杂化。引入“权利反对”：功利主义，尤其是行动功利主义，未能尊重个体权利。演示规则功利主义如何考虑采纳诸如“医生可为器官杀死无辜者”的规则带来的长远后果——这会侵蚀医疗系统的信任，导致总体后果更糟。讨论功利主义能否一贯地纳入边界约束，还是它会沦为直觉主义。用此案例练习评价伦理理论的内部一致性。
7. Kantian Categorical Imperative: Lying to a Murderer | 康德定言命令：对杀人犯说谎
Imagine a murderer at your door asking if your friend is inside. Kant argues that you must not lie, even to save a life, because lying cannot be universalised without contradiction. If everyone lied when it served their purposes, the institution of promising and truth-telling would collapse, and lies would become ineffective. Kant also claims that lying to the murderer would make you partially responsible for the consequences of your lie, whereas if you tell the truth, you are not morally responsible for the murderer’s actions.
想象一个杀人犯在门口问你朋友是否在里面。康德论证说你绝不能撒谎，即使是救人一命，因为撒谎无法无矛盾地普遍化。如果人人都为了自身目的而撒谎，承诺和说真话的制度就会崩溃，谎言也将失效。康德还声称，对杀人犯撒谎会使你对谎言的后果负有部分责任，而如果你说实话，你对杀人犯的行为不负道德责任。
This case tests your ability to apply the two formulas of the categorical imperative. With the Universal Law formula, ask: can you rationally will a maxim such as 'I will lie whenever I believe it could save an innocent life' as a universal law? With the formula of Humanity, explain how lying to the murderer treats him as a mere means, but also how telling the truth treats your friend as a means to moral purity. Evaluate whether Kant’s absolute prohibition on lying is too rigid. Some defenders tweak the maxim description (e.g., 'lie to a would-be murderer with the intent to protect an innocent'). Discuss the conflict of duties and whether a more pluralistic deontology, like Ross’s prima facie duties, offers a better answer.
这个案例测试你应用定言命令两条公式的能力。用普遍法则公式，请问：你能理性地意愿这样一条准则——“凡是我相信能挽救无辜生命时我就撒谎”——成为一条普遍法则吗？用人性公式，解释对杀人犯撒谎如何将他单单当作手段，同时也解释说实话如何把你的朋友当作维持道德纯洁的手段。评价康德对撒谎的绝对禁止是否过于僵化。一些辩护者会调整准则描述（如，“对蓄意杀人者撒谎以保护无辜”）。讨论义务冲突以及是否像罗斯的显见义务那样更多元的义务论提供了更好的回答。
8. Analysing Religious Experiences as Evidence | 分析宗教经验作为证据
St. Teresa of Avila reported vivid experiences of a divine presence and union with God. Religious experiences are often cited as evidence for God's existence. The argument can be formulated as: 'If someone experiences x, it is prima facie rational to believe x exists, unless there are defeaters.' However, critics question whether such experiences are veridical, pointing to possible psychological or neurological explanations.
阿维拉的圣特蕾莎报告了生动的神圣临在及与上帝合一的体验。宗教经验常被引为上帝存在的证据。论证可表述为：“如果某人体验到X，那么在没有否决因素的情况下，相信X存在就是初步合理的。”然而，批评者质疑这类经验是否真实，并指出可能的心理学或神经学解释。
Distinguish between the principle of credulity (Swinburne) and the principle of testimony. Swinburne argues that, other things being equal, we should trust our religious experiences just as we trust ordinary perceptual experiences. Analyse the argument from religious pluralism: if diverse contradictory experiences exist, they cannot all be true, weakening each individual's epistemic force. Also consider the 'challenge from the undercutting defeater': neuroscientific findings (e.g., temporal lobe stimulation) might explain the experiences without positing God, undermining their evidential value. Your analysis should weigh the cumulative case and evaluate whether religious experience provides sufficient rational grounds for belief.
区分轻信原则（斯温伯恩）与见证原则。斯温伯恩指出，在其他条件相同的情况下，我们应该像信任日常感知一样信任自己的宗教经验。分析来自宗教多元主义的论证：如果存在各种相互矛盾的体验，它们不可能全真，这削弱了每个个体的认识力量。也要考虑“削弱的否决因子”挑战：神经科学发现（例如颞叶刺激）可能在不假设上帝的情况下解释这些体验，从而削弱其证据价值。你的分析应权衡累积论证，并评价宗教经验是否为信念提供了充分的理性基础。
9. Functionalism and the Chinese Room | 功能主义与中文房间
John Searle imagines himself locked in a room with a rulebook in English for manipulating Chinese symbols. He receives Chinese characters and, following the rules, outputs appropriate Chinese characters, making those outside think he understands Chinese. Searle insists he has no understanding, only syntax, not semantics. He uses this to argue against strong AI and functionalism—the view that mental states are functional states defined by their causal roles.
约翰·塞尔设想自己锁在一个房间里，有一本英文规则手册用来操作中文符号。他接收中文字符，并按规则输出合适的中文字符，导致外面的人以为他懂中文。塞尔坚称他完全没有理解，只有句法，没有语义。他以此论证反对强人工智能和功能主义——那种认为心理状态是由其因果角色定义的功能状态的观点。
In your analysis, explain the functionalist claims and why the thought experiment is supposed to be a counterexample. Functionalists might respond with the 'systems reply': it is the entire system (Searle plus the rulebook) that understands Chinese, not Searle alone. Or the 'robot reply': ground the symbols in sensory-motor interaction with the world. Also consider the 'other minds reply': we do not know if other minds have qualia either. Evaluate whether Searle simply begs the question by assuming that the syntactical process cannot generate semantics. Link to the broader mind-body problem and whether mental properties are multiply realisable.
在你的分析中，解释功能主义的主张以及为何这一思想实验被认为是一个反例。功能主义者可能用“系统回应”来回应：是整个系统（塞尔加规则手册）理解了中文，而不是塞尔一个人。或“机器人回应”：让符号与世界中的感觉运动互动连接。也要考虑“他心回应”：我们也不知道他心是否有感受质。评价塞尔是否通过假设句法过程不能产生语义而直接回避了问题。联系更广大的心身问题以及心理属性是否可多元实现。
10. Evaluating Virtue Ethics in a Case of Courage | 在勇气案例中评价德性伦理学
Consider a soldier who rushes into mortal danger to save a wounded comrade, not out of duty or calculation of consequences, but because it is 'what a brave person would do'. Aristotle would see this as an expression of the virtue of courage, lying as a mean between cowardice and rashness. The focus is on the character and practical wisdom (phronesis) of the agent.
设想一名士兵冒着生命危险冲入战场去救受伤的战友，不是出于义务或结果计算，而是因为“这就是一个勇敢的人会做的事”。亚里士多德会视之为勇气这一德性的表现，它是怯懦与鲁莽之间的中道。重点在于行动者的品格和实践智慧（phronesis）。
Apply the doctrine of the mean: courage is relative to the situation and the individual's capacity. Examine whether virtue ethics provides clear action guidance—can an inexperienced person know what the virtuous person would do? The 'circularity objection' claims that defining right action in terms of the virtuous person is unhelpful if we cannot identify the virtuous person independently. Discuss how virtue ethics might ground moral education and the development of character. Contrast with Kantian and utilitarian approaches to the same case: what would each demand, and which captures the soldier's motivation best?
应用中道学说：勇气相对于情境和个体能力而定。检验德性伦理学是否能提供明确的行动指引——一个缺乏经验的人能否知道有德性的人会怎么做？“循环性异议”声称，如果我们不能独立识别有德性的人，用德性之人来定义正确行动就是无益的。讨论德性伦理学如何可能奠定道德教育和品格养成。对比康德和功利主义对同一案例的处理方式：它们各自要求什么，哪一个最能捕捉士兵的动机？
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