Like most biological processes, pain systems act like sigmoid curves. They have sensitive tipping points (activation of nociceptors, activation of a matrix of cortical regions, etc) and plateaus. There probably is a maximum plateau that one system can achieve: excruciating pain may feel like “infinitely” painful (as we might want to trade anything to make it stop), but it’s mostly just a powerful enough activation of specific brain regions that completely overtake other regions. These plateau are probably comparable to WFI’s pain intensities
10-point scales are so, so biased, yes. Having cluster headaches or fibromyalgia can make you question your own scale and revise how much a broken leg really feels like. However, they still give indication on the current state of the person’s welfare. If someone says 10 for a bruise, it probably means that the person is in extreme distress and need imediate help—not a lecture on how there probably are worse pains. The question is rather how this person can achieve lower levels of pain (actual painkillers, reassurance, other types of care...). Imagine two persons with broken legs saying they are currently feeling a 9⁄10 pain, one of them having already experienced cluster headaches and the other one having never experienced severe types of injuries. Would you treat them differently ?
We kind of have the same issues for animals. We can observe behavioral changes to infere internal welfare states, but it is completely inaccessible to us. And we know animals prone to chronic pain or depression can show less behavioral cues, just like humans. I think the Moral Weights estimates only look for the potential maximum plateau of pain that one species can achieve (the bucket analogy). This depends on genetics, morphology, physiology; not on welfare at one point in time. Its like comparing the “real” 10⁄10 for every species. Then we can try to deduce where one point in time situates. Compared with humans, where a 10⁄10 would be torture, a broken leg could be a 6⁄10; but if the person says 9⁄10, is their experience less morally relevant ?
I don’t think we can have a definite answer without better understanding sentience and negative internal states. Comparing Moral Weights this way can give us a sense of what to do in worst case scenarios. Shrimps may weight less than humans because their welfare range may be smaller, but if their life conditions put them continuously at their maximum limit while most humans live with reasonable levels of pain, it actually suggests prioritizing ressources to reduce shrimp suffering; plus calculating how much an intervention can avert negative welfare can give us a sense of how much it should cost for it to be effective
Here are a few ideas that come to my mind:
Like most biological processes, pain systems act like sigmoid curves. They have sensitive tipping points (activation of nociceptors, activation of a matrix of cortical regions, etc) and plateaus. There probably is a maximum plateau that one system can achieve: excruciating pain may feel like “infinitely” painful (as we might want to trade anything to make it stop), but it’s mostly just a powerful enough activation of specific brain regions that completely overtake other regions. These plateau are probably comparable to WFI’s pain intensities
10-point scales are so, so biased, yes. Having cluster headaches or fibromyalgia can make you question your own scale and revise how much a broken leg really feels like. However, they still give indication on the current state of the person’s welfare. If someone says 10 for a bruise, it probably means that the person is in extreme distress and need imediate help—not a lecture on how there probably are worse pains. The question is rather how this person can achieve lower levels of pain (actual painkillers, reassurance, other types of care...). Imagine two persons with broken legs saying they are currently feeling a 9⁄10 pain, one of them having already experienced cluster headaches and the other one having never experienced severe types of injuries. Would you treat them differently ?
We kind of have the same issues for animals. We can observe behavioral changes to infere internal welfare states, but it is completely inaccessible to us. And we know animals prone to chronic pain or depression can show less behavioral cues, just like humans. I think the Moral Weights estimates only look for the potential maximum plateau of pain that one species can achieve (the bucket analogy). This depends on genetics, morphology, physiology; not on welfare at one point in time. Its like comparing the “real” 10⁄10 for every species. Then we can try to deduce where one point in time situates. Compared with humans, where a 10⁄10 would be torture, a broken leg could be a 6⁄10; but if the person says 9⁄10, is their experience less morally relevant ?
I don’t think we can have a definite answer without better understanding sentience and negative internal states. Comparing Moral Weights this way can give us a sense of what to do in worst case scenarios. Shrimps may weight less than humans because their welfare range may be smaller, but if their life conditions put them continuously at their maximum limit while most humans live with reasonable levels of pain, it actually suggests prioritizing ressources to reduce shrimp suffering; plus calculating how much an intervention can avert negative welfare can give us a sense of how much it should cost for it to be effective
Thanks for sharing your draft!