High school biology students’ use of values in their moral argumentation and decision-making

Figures & data

Table A1. Ethical matrix: ‘Should we stop eating meat? Why?’.

(Factual and appreciative) arguments (quotes from recent media)	well-being (health/welfare)	autonomy (freedom/ choice)	justice (fairness)
Animals 50% of the pigs suffer from pneumonia; more than 70% of the fattening pigs have a growth disorder. More than 70% of the sows have a stomach condition, such as a stomach ulcer. 10% of the sows have a bladder infection. Animals are deprived of freedom. They have no possibility of performing their natural behaviour.	Animal welfare ‘pneumonia … growth disorder … stomach condition, such as a stomach ulcer. … bladder infection’	Freedom (of natural behaviour) ‘They have no possibility of performing their natural behaviour.’	Intrinsic value ‘Animals are deprived of freedom’
The living environment The meat you want to eat is at the expense of a whole bunch of other animal species. 35% of the biomass of mammals is taken by humans and 61% by livestock consumed by humans. Only 4% is still wild. This percentage of wild animals is further decreasing: it is estimated that around 2100 there will only be 2% wild animals left. One cow annually delivers just as many greenhouse gases as driving 70,000 kilometres by car, and the production of 1 kilo of beef requires a total of 15,000 litres of water.	Nature conservation ‘(meat consumption) is at the expense of a whole bunch of other animal species.’	Biodiversity (self-regulating) ‘Only 4% (of the mammals) is still wild.’ ‘This percentage of wild animals is further decreasing…’	Sustainability ‘One cow annually delivers just as many greenhouse gases as …’

¹Due to space limitations we only present two groups of stakeholders. In the original matrix, ‘Farmers’ and ‘Consumers’ were also included as stakeholders.

²At the start of each lesson, the moral values were still omitted in the matrix. Halfway through the lesson, the students were provided with a completed matrix—to compare their results with, and to let them continue with the other tasks.

Table

Information box 1. Illustrative example of a lesson. Start of the lesson The lesson starts with several video fragments, presenting arguments from different perspectives. Then the dilemma is introduced with a question. For instance: ‘Should we stop eating meat? Why?’ Subsequently the students work on a number of individual and group tasks (see below).

Individual tasks: Indicate whether you consider this to be an important dilemma. For me this dilemma is: not at all important—not important—neutral—important—very important What do you think? What is the first thing that comes to mind when you think about this dilemma? Are you for or against? Why? What are important arguments for you? Maybe you do not know, or not know yet, which is also possible. Write down your answers to these questions.

The students receive an ethical matrix for this dilemma^1 (cf., Table A1).

Group tasks: Discuss: Which arguments (quotations from stakeholders) belong to which moral values? Which arguments are factual and which are appreciative? How do you determine whether an argument is factual or appreciative?

Individual tasks: Think about the dilemma again (on your own). Use the completed matrix: what are important stakeholders to you? Which (factual and appreciative) arguments and moral values do you consider important? Why? Are there any other personal values that you consider important as well? For example, values you carry from home, or from your religion, or from a group of friends, or a political party that you’re a member of. Write down your answers to these questions.

Group tasks: Discuss: What do the others think? What are (the most) important values for them, both those from the matrix and personal values? Which (factual and appreciative) arguments and moral values carry the most weight? Why? Do you think the same? Where do you differ?

Individual tasks: Are you still for or against? What are important (factual and appreciative) arguments and moral values that have been put forward? Which ones did you not know yet? Did it influence your opinion? Which arguments or values are decisive for you? Why? Of course, it is also possible that you still don’t know, or you don’t know anymore. What do you think is the reason for that? Write down your answers to these questions.

Group task: You might think you have little influence on what happens, or is decided, in this dilemma. Discuss with your group in what way(s) you could influence it anyway.

Individual task: Is this dilemma still as important to you, or has it become more or less important? For me, this dilemma: became less important—remained just as important—became more important

¹About halfway through the lesson, the students were provided with a completed matrix—to compare their results with, and to let them continue with the other tasks.

²Due to space limitations, we only present the student tasks. In the students’ original worksheets, space was left open to write down their answers.

Table A2. Overview of the module’s implementation: introductory lesson and the addressed moral dilemmas.

Week^1	topic/moral dilemma	label
1	Introductory lesson on the use of ethics in socioscientific issues	intro
2	Should we feed the large herbivores in ‘Oostvaardersplassen’ during severe winters? Why?	feeding
3	Should wolves have every opportunity to resettle in the Netherlands? Why?	wolf
4	Should we stop eating meat? Why?	meat
5	Should we ban the use of neonicotinoids? Why?	neonics
(7–8)^2	Should we stop the rehabilitation of seals from the Wadden Sea? Why?	seals

¹The classroom time was 50 minutes per week.

²Individual interviews after the intervention.

Table A3. (a) Coding scheme (Value-oriented anthropocentric environmental ethics: VO-AEE). (b) Coding scheme (Value-oriented non-anthropocentric environmental ethics: VO-NAEE). (c) Coding scheme (Relation-oriented environmental ethics (RO-EE).

Category	Description	Code	Ilustrative quote
(a)
Moral object (MO)
Intragenerational	People living today	INTRA	(Our) crops depend on bees. (Bruce, neonics)
Intergenerational	People living today and future generations	INTER	Farmers should be able to continue to do their work. (Vernon, meat)
Human–nature relationship (HN)
Biologically	Humans and nature are biologically separated or integrated	BIO	You need the nutrients and vitamins. (Madelyn, meat)
Instrumental value of Nature (IVN)
Demand value	Natural resources are valued because they satisfy our felt preferences	DV	The animals have to be shot. Then there is less hunger. (Sophie, feeding)
Need value	Natural resources are valued because humankind is dependent on nature for its basic well-being and survival	NV	Some crops cannot be grown without bees. (Vaughan, neonics)
(b)
Moral object (MO)
Sentientism	Non-human animals with the ability to experience pain and suffering have intrinsic value	SENT	If a seal pup is injured, you take care of it. (Madelyn, seals)
Animal Rights	Non-human animals with a sense of self have intrinsic value	ANIM	The wolf must have freedom where it wants to live. (Sarah, wolf)
Biocentrism	All organisms have intrinsic value by virtue of having a good of their own related to their flourishing	BIOC	Bees and insects are living creatures. (Vaughan, neonics)
Ecocentrism	Ecosystems and species have intrinsic value because it is possible to relate to them as separate entities	ECOC	Let nature take its course. (Madelyn, feeding)
Human–nature relationship (HN)
Biologically	Humans and nature are biologically separated or integrated	BIO	They are not pets. (Bruce, feeding)
Intrinsic value of Nature (InVN)
Inherent worth	Non-human nature has an objective value of its own	INHW	They are living creatures and you don’t want that they die that way. (Vaughan, seals)
(c)
Deep ecology (DE)	Identifications with other species and the land involve a deeper sense of belonging, which means developing aesth/ethical practice	DE	Without insects, humanity is in danger. (Bruce, neonics)
Social ecology (SE)	Environmental justice, i.e., a fair political system that acknowledges the suffering of both humans and non-humans	SE	We owe it to those poor animals, after all, we released them ourselves. (Sarah, feeding)
Ecofeminism (EF)^1	Underlines how values of care, partnership, kinship, love, friendship etc. take precedence in human–non-human relationships	EF	I think you (should) take care of them and ensure that they can go back to nature. (Bruce, seals)
Pragmatism (PR)	Accentuates the need for ethical pluralism arguing that the goal is to describe people’s actual reasons for valuing nature	PR	Wolves should not become extinct, but it is possible to make a reserve for the wolves. (Vernon, wolf)

¹An ecofeminist approach (e.g., Warren, 1997) emphasizes situated human–non-human relationships of dominion in context, and it relates environmental degradation to the social oppression of women. According to an ecofeminist approach, affectively-loaded concepts as care, sympathy, and compassion should be central to the process of moral argumentation and decision-making. The ecofeminist approach is not without controversy, which is evidenced by later research, in which (initial) assertions that traits like care, sympathy and compassion are predominantly female characteristics or abilities were largely refuted (cf. Nucci, 2013).

Table A4. Students’ decisive values in their moral argumentation and decision-making regarding ‘meat’.

Values (codes)	Bruce	Madelyn	Sophie	Sarah	Vaughan	Vernon
VO-AEE
MO-INTRA	B^a	B	I	B	B	B
MO-INTER		B	N	B	B
HN-BIO	N^b	N		I	B	B
IVN-DV		N			I	B
IVN-NV	N	N		B	B	B
VO-NAEE
MO-SENT			N	N	N
MO-ANIM				I
MO-BIOC				B	N
MO-ECOC	I^c
InVN-INHW				B	N
RO-EE
DE				B
SE			I	B
EF				N
PR	B	B	B	B	B	B

^a)‘B’ refers to decisive values used in both the introductory essay and in the students’ final moral decision.

^b)‘N’ refers to newly used values as being decisive (i.e., not used in the students’ introductory essay).

^c)‘I’ refers to values that were used in the introductory essay, but were absent in the students’ final decision.