The spotted lanternfly, an invasive species from Asia, has spread across the northeastern United States, prompting public campaigns to stomp them on sight. However, as the bugs' actual damage proves less severe than initially feared, a moral quandary emerges: Is it right to kill these creatures?
The Lanternfly Invasion and Public Response
First detected in Pennsylvania in 2014, the spotted lanternfly (Lycorma delicatula) has since spread to New York and other states. Initial fears of widespread tree and crop destruction led to aggressive control measures, including quarantines and pesticides. By 2020, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture urged the public to "squish their guts out any time you see them," a call many embraced with zeal.
Yet, scientists now say the bugs have not caused as much damage as anticipated. The primary threat remains to grapevines, with vineyards facing real economic harm. Individual stomping has little impact on population levels; experts emphasize reporting sightings and scraping egg masses as more effective strategies.
The Ethical Frameworks
To navigate the decision, environmental scientist Chelsea Batavia, who specializes in conservation ethics, suggests three normative ethics frameworks:
Consequentialism
This framework weighs outcomes. Killing lanternflies may prevent harm to humans (especially grape growers) and future insect deaths, but it also ends conscious lives—if insects feel pain. Batavia notes that uncertainty and non-comparable outcomes make pure calculation difficult.
Deontology
Focusing on intentions, deontology considers motivations. Stomping to be a good neighbor or protect one's community can be morally valid, even if the act itself is troubling.
Virtue Ethics
This ancient approach asks what a virtuous person would do. It might mean taking on the burden of killing for the community or, conversely, upholding a reverence for life. There is no single rule, but thoughtful deliberation is key.
Moral Residue: Living with Discomfort
Batavia introduced the concept of "moral residue"—the lingering bad feeling after making a difficult ethical choice. "One thing moral residue is not meant to do is let anybody off the hook," she said. "You either kill them or you don't. And I think you're probably going to have to sit with some sort of discomfort either way."
For the author, after considering the frameworks, the decision is to stomp—valuing communitarian duty over personal distaste. However, this comes with acceptance of moral residue and a commitment to voice unease: "I actually hate killing these bugs. Isn't it a rough trade-off that we're being asked to make?"
Batavia herself would not stomp, citing a strong reverence for life. Yet she acknowledges the obligation to prevent future harm. The key, she emphasizes, is responsible moral agency: wading into complexity rather than seeking simplistic answers.
