Advertisement

Social Planning Without Bentham or Aristotle: Towards Dignified and Socially Engaged Well-being

  • Neil ThinEmail author
Chapter
Part of the International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life book series (IHQL)

Abstract

Social planners worldwide are trying to articulate more clearly how they promote wellbeing. Many use the term ‘eudaimonia,’ usually in contrast to ‘hedonia’, as a general rubric for promoting specific kinds of socially approved wellbeing. While this pair is often associated with enriched debates about various aspects of wellbeing, eudaimonism is too incoherent to provide uniquely helpful analytical insights. Moreover, its opposition to both hedonism and subjectivism is implausible and a source of important confusions. Its main potential lies in alerting us to the risks of social planners relying too heavily on reductionist quantification of wellbeing. Eudaimonists usefully remind us of the need for intelligent and complex deliberation about various kinds of goodness that are hard to quantify. Four salient eudaimonist thematic clusters are identified here: truth; active virtue; excellence; and intrinsic goodness. Both simplification (including quantification) and sophistication (including complex interpretive and narrative approaches) are needed in national and organizational learning strategies. All planners and learners need to reject the problematic belief, shared by utilitarians and eudaimonists alike, in a single ultimate criterion of value that is worth ‘maximising’.

Keywords

Happiness Wellbeing Eudaimonia Aristotle Philosophy 

References

  1. Bates, W. (2013). Should we choose eudaimonia over hedonia? http://wintonbates.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/should-we-choose-eudaimonia-over-hedonia.html
  2. Belliotti, R. A. (2003). Happiness is overrated. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  3. Bentham, J. (1776/1907). Introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  4. Biswas-Diener, R., Kashdan, T., & King, L. (2009). Two traditions of happiness research, not two distinct types of happiness. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 208–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruni, L. (2008). Back to Aristotle? Happiness, eudaimonia, and relational goods. In L. Bruni, F. Comim, & M. Pugno (Eds.), Capabilities and happiness (pp. 114–139). New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Coyne, J. C. (2013). Highly correlated hedonic and eudaimonic well-being thwart genomic analysis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, 110(45), E4183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crespo, R. F., & Mesurado, B. (2015). Happiness economics, eudaimonia and positive psychology: From happiness economics to flourishing economics. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16, 931–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: An introduction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diener, E., & Seligman, M. (2004). Beyond money: Toward an economy of well-being. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Disabato, D. J., Goodman, F. R., Kashdan, T. B., Short, J. L., & Jarden, A. (2015). Different types of well-being? A cross-cultural examination of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Psychological Assessment [advance online].Google Scholar
  11. Edgeworth, F. Y. (1881). Mathematical psychics. London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  12. Fleurbaey, M., & Blanchet, D. (2013). Beyond GDP: Measuring welfare and assessing sustainability. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goodin, R. E. (1995). Utilitarianism as a public philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grinde, B. (2003). Darwinian happiness: Evolution as a guide for understanding human behavior. Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press.Google Scholar
  15. Henderson, L. W., & Knight, T. (2012). Integrating the hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives to more comprehensively understand well-being and pathways to well-being. International Journal of Well-being, 2(3), 196–221.Google Scholar
  16. Huta, V., & Waterman, A. S. (2014). Eudaimonia and its distinction from hedonia: Developing a classification and terminology for understanding conceptual and operational definitions. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(6), 1425–1456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hutcheson, F. (1725/2008). Inquiry into the original of our ideas of beauty and virtue. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  18. Joshanloo, M. (2016). Revisiting the empirical distinction between hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of well-being using exploratory structural equation modelling. Journal of Happiness Studies [advance online].Google Scholar
  19. Kashdan, T. B., Biswas-Diener, R., & King, L. A. (2008). Reconsidering happiness: The costs of distinguishing between hedonics and eudaimonia. Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(4), 219–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Keyes, C. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61(2), 121–140.Google Scholar
  21. Keyes, C. L. M., & Haidt, J. (2002). Introduction: human flourishing – The study of that which makes life worthwhile. In C. L. M. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived (pp. 3–12). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  22. Layard, R. (2005). Happiness: Lessons from a new science. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
  23. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nozick, R. (1989). The examined life: Philosophical meditations. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  25. Nussbaum, M. C. (2008/2012). Who is the happy warrior? Philosophy, happiness research, and public policy. International Review of Economics, 59(4), 335–361.
  26. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ryan, R. M., Huta, V., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Living well: A self-determination theory perspective on eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 139–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081.Google Scholar
  29. Schlegel, R. J., Hirsch, K. A., & Smith, C. M. (2013). The importance of who you really are: The role of the true self in eudaimonia. In A. S. Waterman (Ed.), The best within us: Positive psychology perspectives on eudaimonia (pp. 207–225). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Seligman, M. E. P. (2003). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. London: Nicholas Brealey.Google Scholar
  31. Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  32. Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Silvia, P. J. (2006). Exploring the psychology of interest. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Strawson, G. (2004). Against narrativity. Ratio, 17, 428–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ura, K., Alkire, S., Zangmo, T., & Wangdi, K. (2012). A short guide to gross national happiness index. Thimphu, Bhutan: Centre for Bhutan Studies. www.grossnationalhappiness.com/
  36. Vittersø, J. (2013). Functional well-being: Happiness as feelings, evaluations, and functioning. In S. David, I. Boniwell, & A. C. Ayers (Eds.), Oxford handbook of happiness (pp. 227–244). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Vittersø, J., Søholt, Y., Hetland, A., Thorsen, I. A., & Røysamb, E. (2010). Was Hercules happy? Some answers from a functional model of human well-being. Social Indicators Research, 95, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Waterman, A. S. (Ed.). (2013). The best within us: Positive psychology perspectives on eudaimonia. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  39. York, P. (2015). Authenticity is a Con. London: Biteback.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of EdinburghEdinburghScotland

Personalised recommendations