I’m interested in knowing this:
Do you feel bad when you kill a mosquito? (If you never did, would you feel bad?)
Do you think EAs —or people in general— should feel bad for killing a mosquito? (Basically, this is a way to ask if you find it morally wrong to kill mosquitoes.)
I think these questions are deeper than it might seem at first glance and can spur a nice ethical debate.
[I unfortunately have almost no time currently, so probably I won’t chip in (much) in the discussion but I’ll definitely read it!]
I try to brush them off gently or blow or push them away, but often kill them reflexively. I guess I sometimes feel mildly disappointed when I kill them.
It might be good for mosquitoes for them to be killed and have their populations reduced (if their lives are net negative overall or on suffering-focused views), but that doesn’t mean the death itself or any potential pain we cause isn’t regrettable. That individual mosquito had her own interests (assuming she was a moral patient at all). But those interests could be outweighed by others.
Should EAs feel bad? I don’t know. I think the main effects of EAs feeling bad will be indirect, through our work and donations, not through the effects on mosquitoes. Maybe getting us to care about mosquitoes will make us more inclined to care about invertebrate welfare more generally, which Open Phil has decided to stop supporting with grants.
I think it’s definitely possible that mosquitoes are moral patients and I try to avoid committing harms when I can! I feel some guilt about killing mosquitoes, ants, etc… as I generally believe that we tend to undervalue super small beings and their potential sentience, but as of right now I have little evidence to back up that this view.
Based off the evidence that does exist, if I assume that mosquitoes fall somewhere between black soldier flies and silkworms in their welfare range then killing 100-1000 mosquitoes a year (assuming this causes suffering) could be the moral equivalent to killing a human. This is a pretty bold conclusion, but I’m not sure that it’s any less true just because it’s bold! -- lot of big assumptions here I know
From a purely consequentialist lens, I think killing a mosquito probably doesn’t matter if I can marginally improve my happiness and donate more, but I feel that this question is more about my values than truly being utility maximizing (similar to being vegan, but spending more money on food instead of donating the extra to animals).
Some related question this brings up: Are mosquitoes net negative? How much do we weight the suffering they cause to other animals? If we can justify killing them for being net negative does this justify misanthropy (I don’t think so, but I don’t have a good reason why)?
What does everyone else think?
I don’t think this is a correct reading of the welfare range estimates. If I understand correctly, these numbers would mean that a mosquito can have hedonic states 0.1% − 1% as intense as humans. So 100-1000 days of mosquito suffering might be on par with one day of human suffering. (And of course this number is a wild guess based on other insects, whose numbers are already very uncertain.)
The harm of death is a different question that RP’s numbers don’t straightforwardly address. Even a purely hedonic account has to factor in lifespan (mosquitos live for about six weeks). And killing a human is bad for a whole host of additional reasons unrelated to preventing future happiness.
So while I think the welfare range estimates suggest huge moral updates, they’re not as huge as you say. It’s good to be able to take bold conclusions seriously, but it’s also worth taking seriously that there might be a good reason for a result to be extremely counterintuitive.
If you really felt bad, you would also have to be diligently doing research on suffering rates per calorie of each plant food.
It’s not immediately obvious whether the crop deaths of a slice of bread which is more easily understood as vegan, causes less suffering than eating a farmed oyster and the killing of its resulting by-catch (barnacles perhaps?).
If anyone can point me towards any research of different foods → suffering (maybe neurons as a proxy?) I would love it.
Some resources I know of:
- https://ethical.diet/
- https://reducing-suffering.org/how-much-direct-suffering-is-caused-by-various-animal-foods/
- https://reducing-suffering.org/vegetarianism-and-wild-animals/
Tomasik’s article on vegetarianism and wild animals was very humbling for me! For a long time I believed that veganism was the ‘right way’ and his article helped me see that I could be wrong even if I assign relatively high moral weights to other species.
Hmm, this response feels a bit weird particularly “if you really felt bad”. I do actually feel bad about killing small insects whether or not it is net positive utility or morally consistent.
I totally agree that it is very unlikely that I am averting the most suffering from harms caused directly by me!
That being said, I do think there is some subjective value in how much moral patienthood I am mentally able to assign to other beings by not hurting them directly.
Need to work through the entire chain of effects here but I think (granted that a wild animal is a moral patient), crushing it for a near instant death is probably just about the least painful way it can die.
And since death is inevitable for mosquitoes, crushing them actually leads to less death-adjacent suffering than the mosquito would otherwise experience in expectancy. You could even see it as mosquito euthanasia. This is especially so if one views the scope of our moral obligation to certain animals as including the avoidance of unnecessary suffering but not the promotion of any sort of affirmative happiness or well-being.
No
If I lived in Uganda (as Nick does), I think I would affirmatively promote the killing of mosquitoes given their role as a disease vector.
I have no qualms about killing something that literally chose to try to steal my blood.
I thought the same way about this, but something that changed my mind a bit was a friend asking me:
”If a baby tried to steal your blood to survive would you kill them for it?”
Now, this is a contrived example and you may have a extremely low moral weight for mosquitoes (I have pretty low moral weights for them too), but I wonder how your thoughts about the statement changes if it is instead:
I have no qualms about killing someone that stole my blood to survive.
Would be interested to hear your thoughts!
The baby analogy seems a bit forced to me because babies do not drink blood (and babies in utero do not choose to be there). But if an adult came along and started biting me hard enough to break the skin, potentially infecting me with some disease, I’d consider myself justified in whacking them as hard as it takes to get them off. I guess to your point I’d try to hit them non-lethally though, unlike with a mosquito.
Mosquitos do not really chose to try to seal your blood, do they?
But if they “don’t chose” how much do they “feel”? There is some tension in giving personhood but not responsability.
I don’t follow you. When did I give personhood to mosquitos?
If they are conscious they “chose” to do what they do. If not, they have not moral value.
The moralist question about what the mosquito chose while in surface is almost comical, points out to the serious problem of any extension of the moral circle to non reciprocating individuals.
In this case, it is totally unlikely the mosquito is conscious at all, but even if it is, how much should you accommodate its dangerous predation ?
There is no universal value -not even moral value- scale. Each person has his/her own. If the mosquitoes cannot chose/feel, they don’t have moral value for you. Other people may value life for its own sake.
I think I lean close to your values, giving moral value to whatever can feel. But this is mostly a rationalisation. I have no clue which animals or other living beings can feel and which don’t (and, even we are scientifically improving in this regard, we cannot really know, at least for now) and still, I give or not give moral value to living beings. In addition, what these living beings do to me or to others (in an absolutely broad sense of others), how they look, how they move, etc. affect my moral judgement, the moral value I give them.
But where I wanted to go: you are going way too fast to determine that mosquitoes cannot feel. What is the relation between being able to chose or not and being able feel? Is a carnivore like a lion able to chose not to eat other animals? Is it able to feel? I think the answers for the lion are clear and make your argument fail.
Both Lions and mosquitoes are enemies. As long as they are contained, I can tolerate them. Mosquitoes are not contained, so I want to nuke them from orbit.
In fact, my whole point is that while chosing is a very real concept, and it is important for ethical reasoning, we really don’t chose in the sense “I could have done otherwise” in this physicalist universe.
The fact that lions and mosquitoes can not change goes against them. The more determined is your hostility, more reasons I have to answer in kind.
Really I wanted to avoid goint into details (because I dont want to take insect sentience too seriously: that would be a defeat!), but this time is impossible:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/nY7oAdy5odfGqE7mQ/freedom-under-naturalistic-dualism
:-)
“Both Lions and mosquitoes are enemies” But enemies can have moral value! [Sorry, I haven’t read your LW post, yet]
I don’t feel bad about killing a mosquito, because I don’t believe mosquitos are moral patients, nor do I believe that an individual mosquito is at all important to the overall functioning of environmental systems.
What do you believe is the moral value of environmental systems?
I never meant to imply that environmental systems have moral value, but I think they definitely have instrumental value, and they might also have some aesthetic value.
They are our worst enemy, killing us by the billions. Flying syringes.
https://www.amazon.com/Mosquito-Human-History-Deadliest-Predator/dp/1524743410
I would nuke them from orbit, no matter the consequences .
It is not mosquitoes who kill us, though.
Shower thought—if person X has a phobia of mosquitos, isn’t it plausible that killing the mosquitos around them reducing net suffering?
If a person suffers more than enjoys, would you find it okay to kill her?
I do feel bad about killing mosquitoes by squishing them. On the other hand, I wear mosquito repellent, try not to leave standing water around, and I’m quite happy to keep geckos in the hope that they kill and eat the mosquitoes. Clearly, my revealed preference here is that I don’t like killing mosquitoes directly but I’m happy for them to die indirectly.
I find killing mosquitoes—and generally causing suffering to mosquitoes—to be upsetting, but I find malaria and dengue even more upsetting. Beyond that, I just don’t like horrible itchy mosquito bites.
I avoid it if it’s not necessary but I have a low bar for “necessary”. I don’t find it morally wrong.