How good is the Humane League compared to the Against Malaria Foundation?

Abstract

To prioritize Founders Pledge’s research and advising efforts, we compared The Humane League’s (THL) cage-free campaigns to the Against Malaria Foundation’s (AMF) bednet distribution. Our analysis, based on a hedonistic, anti-speciesist framework, reveals significant uncertainty surrounding the moral weight assigned to animal well-being. Assuming chickens have moral status, our model suggests THL may be more cost-effective than AMF in most plausible scenarios, though the difference in cost-effectiveness can vary significantly based on the chosen moral weight. If human well-being is valued over 10,000 times more than chicken well-being, AMF appears more cost-effective. Conversely, if human well-being is valued less than 300 times more, THL looks better. Between these bounds, the ranking becomes less clear. It’s important to note that our analysis is subject to significant uncertainty, and we likely haven’t considered all relevant factors.