The highest neutral point we think is plausible is 5⁄10 on a 0 to 10 wellbeing scale, but we mentioned that some philosophical views would stake a claim to the feasibility of 10⁄10.
If you can point me to somewhere on the HLI website I can cite I will update this.
I think you can fill out the missing cells for HLI by taking the average age of death, which for Malaria I is ~2 for under 5′s and ~46 for over 5s. Assuming a life expectancy of 70 (what we’ve assumed previously for malaria deaths), that’d imply a moral weight of under-5s = (70 − 2) *(-1 , 4) or (70 − 45)* (-1, 4).
Will do (I will still be using the same range as before though per my point above about finding somewhere I can cite HLI on using 5 as the maximum neutral point).
The other factor is where to locate the neutral point, the place at which someone has overall zero wellbeing, on a 0-10 life satisfaction scale; we assess that as being at each location between 0⁄10 and 5⁄10.
Or
We might suppose, then, that the neutral point on the life satisfaction scale is somewhere between 0 and 5.
Or you could also note that we estimate the lower bound of the value of saving a life as assuming a neutral point of 5.
If you can point me to somewhere on the HLI website I can cite I will update this.
Will do (I will still be using the same range as before though per my point above about finding somewhere I can cite HLI on using 5 as the maximum neutral point).
Sure,
See section 2.2
Or
Or you could also note that we estimate the lower bound of the value of saving a life as assuming a neutral point of 5.
I had seen both of those, but I didn’t read either of them as commitments that HLI thinks that the neutral point is between 0 and 5.