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)?
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.
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.
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.
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.