2022 Text 4（英語二）倫理學課程有用嗎？

Although ethics classes are common around the world, scientists are unsure if their lessons can actually change behavior, evidence either way is weak, relying on contrived laboratory tests or sometimes unreliable self-reports.

盡管倫理學課程在世界各地很常見，但科學家們不確定其課程是否真的能改變行為；無論是哪種方式，證據(jù)都很薄弱，從依賴人為的實驗室測試，到有時不可靠的自我報告，都是如此。

But a new study published in Cognition found that, in at least one real-world situation, a single ethics lesson may have had lasting effects.

但是發(fā)表在《認知》雜志上的一項新研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，至少在一個真實世界的情況下，一堂倫理學課可能會產生持久的影響。

The researchers investigated one class sessions' impact on eating meat.

研究人員調查了一節(jié)課對吃肉的影響。

They chose this particular behavior for three reasons, according to study co-author Eric Schwitzgebel, a philosopher at the University of California, Riverside: students' attitudes on the topic are variable and unstable, behavior is easily measurable, and ethics literature largely agrees that eating less meat is good because it reduces environmental harm and animal suffering.

研究報告的聯(lián)合作者、加州大學河濱分校的哲學家 Eric Schwitzgebel 表示，他們選擇這種特殊的行為有三個原因：學生對這個話題的態(tài)度多變且不穩(wěn)定，行為很容易衡量，倫理文獻基本上同意少吃肉是好的因為它減少了環(huán)境危害和動物痛苦。

Half of the students in four large philosophy classes read an article on the ethics of factory-farmed meat, optionally watched an 11-minute video on the topic, and joined a 50-minute discussion.

四個大型哲學班的一半學生閱讀了一篇關于工廠化養(yǎng)殖肉類的倫理學文章，選擇觀看了關于該主題的 11 分鐘視頻，并參與了 50 分鐘的討論。

The other half focused on charitable giving instead.

另一半則專注于慈善捐贈。

Then, unknown to the students, the researchers studied their anonymized meal-card purchases for that semester — nearly 14,000 receipts for almost 500 students.

然后，在學生們不知道的情況下，研究人員研究了他們那學期匿名購買的餐卡——近 500 名學生的近 14000 張收據(jù)。

Schwitzgebel predicted the intervention would have no effect; he had previously found that ethics professors do not differ from other professors on a range of behaviors, including voting rates, blood donation, and returning library books.

Schwitzgebel 預測干預不會有任何效果；他之前發(fā)現(xiàn)倫理學教授在一系列行為上與其他教授沒有什么不同，包括投票率、獻血和歸還圖書館書籍。

But among student subjects who discussed meat ethics, meal purchases containing meat decreased from 52 to 45 percent-and this effect held steady for the study's duration of several weeks.

但是，在討論了肉類倫理的學生受試者中，含有肉類的膳食購買量從 52% 下降到 45%——而且這種效果在研究的幾周時間里保持穩(wěn)定。

Purchases from the other group remained at 52 percent.

另一組的購買量保持在 52%。

That's actually a pretty large effect for a pretty small intervention, Schwitzgebel says.

Schwitzgebel 說，對于一個非常小的干預來說，這實際上是一個相當大的影響。

Psychologist Nina Strohminger at the University of Pennsylvania, who was not involved in the study, says she wants the effect to be real but cannot rule out some unknown confounding variable.

賓夕法尼亞大學的心理學家 Nina Strohminger 沒有參與這項研究，她說她希望這種影響是真實的，但不能排除一些未知的混淆變量。

And if real, she notes, it might be reversible by another nudge: "Easy come, easy go."

她指出，如果是真的，通過另一個（因素）推動，其結果也可能是可逆的：“來得容易，去得也容易?！?/span>

Schwitzgebel suspects the greatest impact came from social influence — classmates or teaching assistants leading the discussions may have shared their own vegetarianism, showing it as achievable or more common.

Schwitzgebel 懷疑最大的影響來自社會影響——領導討論的同學或助教可能分享了他們自己的素食主義，表明素食主義是可以實現(xiàn)的或更普遍的。

Second, the video may have had an emotional impact.

其次，視頻可能產生了情感影響。

Least rousing, he thinks, was rational argument, although his co-authors say reason might play a bigger role.

他認為，最不令人振奮的是理性的爭論，盡管他的合著者說理性可能發(fā)揮了更大的作用。

Now the researchers are probing the specific effects of teaching style, teaching assistants' eating habits and students' video exposure.

現(xiàn)在，研究人員正在探究教學風格、助教的飲食習慣和學生的視頻接觸的具體影響。

Meanwhile, Schwitzgebel — who had predicted no effect — will be eating his words.