# Moral weight

Moral weight is a concept used in ethical decision-making to assess the relative significance of the lives, interests, and experiences of moral patients—beings considered to have moral value. It serves as a criterion for determining the extent to which different species should be prioritized in efforts to enhance welfare, based on their capacity for conscious experience, suffering, and wellbeing. Research on moral weight seeks to establish which animals qualify as moral patients and to what degree their interests should be considered, particularly in contexts where resources for improving welfare are limited.

## Practical uses
### Cost-effectiveness analysis

Moral weight is applied to quantify and compare the impact of different charitable interventions. American non-profit GiveWell assigns moral weights to various outcomes, such as increasing consumption versus preventing child deaths, to guide funding recommendations. These weights are based on staff values but are cross-checked with approaches used by governments and global health organizations, such as the "value of a statistical life" metric. While no universal standard exists, most frameworks prioritize childhood over adult mortality prevention. GiveWell's analysis suggests that using standard moral weight assumptions would not significantly alter its current charity recommendations but may influence future evaluations.

### Charity prioritization

Moral weights help prioritize charities by quantifying the relative value of different interventions, such as reducing mortality, improving health, enhancing mental well-being, and boosting economic circumstances. Founders Pledge uses moral weights to compare the impact of charities operating in these diverse areas. Their approach integrates survey-based methods—considering donor preferences, insights from people in extreme poverty, and expert opinions—with empirical data. This allows them to establish trade-offs between metrics like Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs), WELLBYs, and income doublings. By refining these moral weights, they aim to maximize the effectiveness of charitable giving and identify the most impactful interventions.

### Comparing animal welfare

Moral weight is a concept used to compare the welfare of different animals, such as chickens, pigs, and octopuses. By examining their behaviors, preferences, and emotional responses, we can understand how intensely they experience pleasure and pain. For example, chickens demonstrate a strong preference for nesting, as seen in their efforts to reach a nest box before laying eggs, suggesting that this activity holds significant importance to them. The recognition of these varying experiences challenges the tendency to underestimate the welfare of non-human animals, and the assessment of moral weight serves as a framework for more ethically informed decision-making in areas such as animal welfare and policy.

## Organizations that use moral weight

Rethink Priorities uses moral weight to assess animal welfare by calculating each species' potential welfare based on welfare range and lifespan. It assumes utilitarianism, hedonism, valence symmetry, and unitarianism, treating welfare improvements equally across species. By converting welfare changes into DALY-equivalents (Disability-Adjusted Life Years), it enables cross-species cost-effectiveness comparisons, helping to prioritize interventions that maximize overall welfare. Founders Pledge uses the concept to compare the impact of global health and development programs by evaluating different metrics: lives saved, health improvements (DALYs), mental wellbeing (WELLBYs), and economic gains (income doublings). They combine survey-based methods and empirical data to estimate how much each goal matters relative to the others, factoring in perspectives from donors, beneficiaries, and researchers. This approach helps prioritize interventions for maximum impact. GiveWell uses moral weight in cost-effectiveness analyses to compare the impact of different charities, such as those that focus on health improvements versus those that address income.