Cognition 203 (C):104397 (2020)
AbstractDo university ethics classes influence students’ real-world moral choices? We aimed to conduct the first controlled study of the effects of ordinary philosophical ethics classes on real-world moral choices, using non-self-report, non-laboratory behavior as the dependent measure. We assigned 1332 students in four large philosophy classes to either an experimental group on the ethics of eating meat or a control group on the ethics of charitable giving. Students in each group read a philosophy article on their assigned topic and optionally viewed a related video, then met with teaching assistants for 50-minute group discussion sections. They expressed their opinions about meat ethics and charitable giving in a follow-up questionnaire (1032 respondents after exclusions). We obtained 13,642 food purchase receipts from campus restaurants for 495 of the students, before and after the intervention. Purchase of meat products declined in the experimental group (52% of purchases of at least $4.99 contained meat before the intervention, compared to 45% after) but remained the same in the control group (52% both before and after). Ethical opinion also differed, with 43% of students in the experimental group agreeing that eating the meat of factory farmed animals is unethical compared to 29% in the control group. We also attempted to measure food choice using vouchers, but voucher redemption rates were low and no effect was statistically detectable. It remains unclear what aspect of instruction influenced behavior.
Similar books and articles
Common Arguments for the Moral Acceptability of Eating Meat: A Discussion for Students.Dan Lowe - 2016 - Between the Species 19 (1):172-192.
In Defense of Eating Vegan.Stijn Bruers - 2015 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (4):705-717.
Meat Eating and Moral Responsibility: Exploring the Moral Distinctions between Meat Eaters and Puppy Torturers.C. E. Abbate - 2020 - Utilitas 32 (4):398-415.
Teaching Business Ethics Online: Perspectives on Course Design, Delivery, Student Engagement, and Assessment. [REVIEW]Denis Collins, James Weber & Rebecca Zambrano - 2014 - Journal of Business Ethics 125 (3):1-17.
The Moral Complexities of Eating Meat.Ben Bramble & Bob Fischer (eds.) - 2015 - Oxford University Press.
Lessons learned from ethics in the classroom: Exploring student growth in flexibility, complexity and comprehension. [REVIEW]Patricia J. Carlson & Frances Burke - 1998 - Journal of Business Ethics 17 (11):1179-1187.
On eating animals: Michael B. Gill.Michael B. Gill - 2013 - Social Philosophy and Policy 30 (1-2):201-207.
Academic Ethics at the Undergraduate Level: Case Study from the Formative Years of the Institute. [REVIEW]Supreet Saini - 2013 - Journal of Academic Ethics 11 (1):35-44.
‘Animals Do It Too!’: The Franklin Defence of Meat-Eating.Elizabeth Telfer - 2004 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 1 (1):51-67.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
RETRACTED: Beyond moral dilemmas: The role of reasoning in five categories of utilitarian judgment.François Jaquet & Florian Cova - 2021 - Cognition 209 (C):104572.
The Development of a Case-Based Course on Global Engineering Ethics in China.Rockwell F. Clancy - 2020 - International Journal of Ethics Education 6 (1):51-73.
Harnessing Moral Psychology to Reduce Meat Consumption.Joshua May & Victor Kumar - forthcoming - Journal of the American Philosophical Association.
How Stable are Moral Judgments?Paul Rehren & Walter Sinnott-Armstrong - forthcoming - Review of Philosophy and Psychology:1-27.
Engaging charitable giving: The motivational force of narrative versus philosophical argument.Eric Schwitzgebel, Christopher McVey & Joshua May - forthcoming - Philosophical Psychology:1-36.
References found in this work
The case for animal rights.Tom Regan - 2009 - In Steven M. Cahn (ed.), Noûs. Oxford University Press. pp. 425-434.
Norms in the Wild: How to Diagnose, Measure, and Change Social Norms.Cristina Bicchieri - 2016 - Oxford University Press USA.