1.2. How to achieve good life?
1.2. How to achieve good life?
In this chapter, we will briefly attend to different views of good life and how good life is studied in the human sciences. Examining the views of good life and well-being is important because, among other things, it affects what kinds of political practices are used to secure it. It is good to be aware of these views, especially when the aim is to change social structures rapidly.
Philosophical perspectives on good life
Especially in the early days of western philosophy, pondering, promoting and teaching good life were intertwined together in the philosophy of many a thinker. An important task for philosophy has always been to produce knowledge about good life and how to live it. Conceptions of good life are linked to conceptions about the human – which aim to tell us what a human is and what they could be – as well as world views, which express why or how the human exists in the world, what is the meaning of life and which values define good life. Many factors affect conceptions of the human and conceptions of good life: the values learned at home and school, media and politics, science and art. Niiniluoto emphasises that new research can specify and challenge current conceptions of the human and that the scientific conception of the human is constantly changing. The conceptions of the human in different fields of research are discussed in more depth in section 2.
The prevailing views on the contents of good life have varied greatly in different cultures and different times. The following example questions can help you think about your own views:
“Is the objective of human life self-interest, personal happiness, pleasure, wealth and health – or work, human relations and social justice? Does a human only have a price and market value or is there an inalienable human dignity based on which the rights of every individual human must be respected, regardless of their actions and merits?” (Niiniluoto 2015, 10.)
In Western philosophy, various approaches in normative ethics have aimed to answer the basis on which an action is right or wrong. The justifications are based on the values as well as conceptions of the human in each approach. In the philosophy of good life, we can identify two main strands: one that emphasises the experiences of happiness and the fulfilment of desires (hedonic well-being) and another that emphasises virtuous action and the comprehensive meaningfulness of life (eudaimonic well-being).
The hedonic view of well-being
Hedonic well-being stems from the thinking of the classical philosopher Epicurus, and libertarian philosophers John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham also developed it in the 19th century. Hedonic well-being is based on the idea that well-being consists of experiencing happiness and pleasure. Hedonic well-being is therefore individualistic: only I can know what makes me happy. On a societal level, the hedonic view means that a good society must enable its members to experience as much happiness as possible. This view is called hedonistic utilitarianism. The hedonic view is popular, e.g., in psychological research on happiness in which happiness and satisfaction are measured via questionnaires. According to critics, a view of well-being that is based on the happiness of an individual does not produce tools for examining well-being from a societal standpoint, because it does not address the materialistic and social preconditions for well-being.
Eudaimonic view of well-being
The eudaimonic view of well-being emphasises the meaningfulness of life, and human activity. It is a strain of thought in virtue ethics. In virtue ethics, it is thought that good life means that one lives virtuously. Therefore, in virtue ethics, good life is not determined by how one is doing (personal wealth, health etc.) or how one perceives they are doing, but by the way one acts in the world and towards others.
Of the ancient Greek philosophers, especially Aristotle (382–322 BCE) considered eudaimonism. According to him, a person's good life is succeeding in what is characteristic, possible and desirable of a human. The Greek word areté, which is usually translated as ‘virtue’, used by Aristotle also refers to this kind of success. In contemporary language the word ‘potential’ could be used: e.g., when evaluating a racehorse or a car and considering whether they reach their full potential in the most effective manner possible. Aristotle concluded that humans’ biggest virtue (areté) was acting according to reason and virtues that can be understood through reason, and the greatest happiness therefore results from a meaningful life gained from virtuous activities. Consequently, merely seeking pleasure is not enough to achieve happiness, because there are possibilities and inclinations for more in the distinctive qualities of humans. Psychologist Corey Keyes and Aristotle specialist Julia Annas emphasise that eudaimonism is action instead of an experienced state of mind and it is linked to living virtuously. In this sense, eudaimonic happiness is an achievement related to the discovery of one's own path in life. Of course, some external factors, such as sufficient material livelihood and some luck to avoid severe accidents, are required for a complete eudaimonic happiness.
Perspectives emphasising meaningfulness and reason also emerged in modern philosophy. For example, Baruch Spinoza concluded in the 17th century that ultimate happiness is to be released from external influences and chains that we easily accept as given. When free of those chains and influences, we may experience an active force of life that we can control and direct towards objectives determined by ourselves. For Spinoza, nature and God were one and the same, for which he was shunned in the highly religious society of the time. The Spinozian thinking on happiness as fulfilling oneself also inspired one of the most influential environmental philosophers of the 1990s, Arne Naess. In his view, called deep ecology, the good life of a person was created through fulfilling oneself, which was only slightly dependent on material consumption and more on other factors that contribute to the quality and meaningfulness of life, such as a healthy and diverse environment and the possibility to coexist. Naess thought that all living beings have a fundamental right to fulfil themselves in this manner.
The views of good life in a society
The meaningfulness of life is a difficult idea, especially when the perspectives of sustainable development, well-being and justice should be examined – let alone promoted – on a societal level. Perhaps for this exact reason, the Aristotelian perspective has been developed since the 1970s and 80s in the field of global development research towards a form, where the attention is in the objectively evaluable capabilities of people instead of subjectively experienced meaningfulness: what kinds of choices and possibilities people really have in their lives? Are they able to fulfil themselves and live life according to their values? In addition to material living standards and possibility for health and livelihood, basic rights, cultural conceptions that promote equality or inequality, and possibilities for education also affect the capabilities of people considerably. The perspective of capabilities was also the starting point, when the global Human Development Index (HDI) was developed in the United Nations’ development program (UNDP) in the 1990s. In this index, the development of societies is evaluated through the life expectancy, education and level of livelihood of the citizens. The HDI measure is still being developed and it will be discussed more in chapter 1.5.
In the perspective of global development research, people themselves are not asked if they are living a good life. Instead of asking about subjective experience, common criteria for good life (or life as per human dignity) or well-being are defined for all people. This means it is an objective definition of well-being (more below in the chapter “Good life for whom?”.) An objective definition of well-being is important, for example, for just social politics. Without this definition, there may arise a situation in which promoting well-being in a society means that people who have adopted a materialistic lifestyle and habitually act on their desires get the most out of a society, because otherwise they don't feel that they are well. On the other hand, people who are not used to having health or wealth may end up in even worse situations because they may not know how to improve their position of inequality or do not have the strength to do it.
Satisfying desires
The well-being and good life of people are perceived phenomena. Because of this subjective aspect, the views of good life are also culture-specific: the culture surrounding us with its values and habits influences what we perceive as good and valuable (e.g., what kind of material possession is seen as a part of good life or what kind of emphasis is placed on interhuman relations and family connections.) The experiential view is important but also limited by subjectivity: my experience represents my specific individual perspective. However, as we learned on the course ‘Systems and Planetary Well-being’, an individual perspective does not only stem from the individual themselves. The subjective experience of well-being is greatly affected by different norms, desires and hopes, some of which are specific to cultures and situations. Norms, desires and hopes may also be created by marketing and other methods of influencing, in which case meeting them can advance the economic profits of the company offering the satisfaction rather than the well-being of the desiring individual. In that case we find ourselves in a situation, where the perceived well-being of an individual may actually be used to advance actions that reduce the possibilities for the well-being of other individuals, communities, species and ecosystems. Therefore, it is important to critically examine what influences our desires, hopes and perceptions of good life.
When it comes to social and ecological sustainability, using desires and hopes as measures of good life or well-being may be problematic. For example, in a digitalised market economy with a high living standard, social media and advertising put out continuous stimuli about new desirable things and we may adopt acquiring those things as an essential precondition for our well-being. What used to be good and enough is not enough anymore because we have seen that others have even more or “better”. What is particularly problematic is that most people have evolved to have a need to achieve at least a middle class status in society to secure their own survival and well-being. In other words, as individuals, we usually strive for doing well compared to others.
In societies that emphasise material living standards and economic wealth or opportunities for consuming as signs of good life, the game of status competition can give rise to a feedback loop of growing standards of living. In such a case, good life requires a continuously growing standard of living while the perceived criteria for a “normal standard of living” get ever more demanding. The conception of good life that is connected to infinitely growing hopes and desires cripples the preconditions for ecological sustainability and also creates social inequality. Good life becomes the life of the economically prosperous, and this kind of good life also maintains the “treadmill of production”. The speed of the treadmill, i.e., the acceleration of production and consumption is more and more difficult to control when so many are busy running faster on the treadmill. It is also a problem that giving up an acquired advantage is often seen as difficult: The negative feeling linked to losing 50 euros is usually greater in people than the positive feeling linked to receiving 50 euros.
Meaningful life
The views of good life that emphasise the meaninfulness of life are also experiential, but they emphasise a different perspective: good life is not primarily based on realising just any desires and hopes. Some desires and hopes are based on an individual's own values and consideration, but an individual may also have numerous so-called unconscious (or just slightly conscious) motivations, such as impulsive cravings. Many of these are the result of the signals of market economy. Instead of the satisfaction of cravings, the cornerstones of good life are self-fulfilment, meaningful relationships and the possibilities for action. When understood in this way, good life is a much more comprehensive idea. Achieving good life also does not necessarily require or reflect high material living standard or consumption (of course, impulsive cravings do not always have to be linked to spending money and consumption, but because market economy and the media supporting it cause cravings like this, the link is often significant). Emphasising meaningfulness also raises questions about the relationship between work and good life. Is work primarily a way to gain money to satisfy one's own needs and desires (instrumental value perspective) – in which case the value of work is measured primarily in money – or can work contribute to the meaningfulness of life and good life in ways that cannot be measured with money or bought with it (meaningfulness perspective)?
With questionnaire surveys, it is easy to measure the experiential well-being of even large groups of people. The World Happiness report, in which Finland has been stated to be the happiest country in the world (2017–2022) is also based on questionnaire surveys. The report also evaluates the factors affecting perceived happiness, and it is notable that perceived happiness is not directly dependent on the economic wealth of a country (gross domestic product per person). The report also approaches happiness in a very broad sense, not, for instance, only by measuring the perceived fulfilment of desires and hopes. On the other hand, the measure comparing country-specific averages does not sufficiently account for social sustainability and equality. The attached information box illustrates this. It is also difficult to determine the measures of good life because, among other things, the universal measures used in international studies do not necessarily distinguish what the poverty or income level means for people in different countries.
In the state of Bhutan, good life is measured with the Gross National Happiness measure. In 1972, King Jigme Singye Wangchuck of Bhutan established it to be a more important measure of development than gross domestic product. The measure was developed to support decision-making and includes nine sectors: psychological well-being, health, education, use of time, cultural diversity and flexibility, good government, the vitality of a community, ecological diversity and resiliency, and living standard. The measure reflects the Buddhist conception of good life that is less concerned with the individual and success than many of the prevailing conceptions in Western countries. On the other hand, even this definition of good life does not necessarily mean that everyone's good life would be as visible or accepted: Bhutan only decriminalised homosexuality in 2021.
It is also possible to lead a meaningful life within the boundaries of the planet. For example, thinkers calling for eco-social education have proposed that meaningfulness based on communality, participation and influencing directs people towards building a sustainable future together. We will revisit eco-social education later in the course.
The problem of averages
Let's assume that perceived happiness or well-being on a scale from 1 to 10 is surveyed from the citizens of two countries: in Equaland and Inequaland. The citizens of Equaland are all rather content with their lives and there are no differences in perceived well-being. In Inequaland, on the other hand, there is a majority who perceive their life as excellent but whose well-being is partially based on taking advantage of the weaker position of the discriminated minority. Both countries have 1000 citizens. In Inequaland, the discriminated minority comprises 20% of the population.
In Equaland, all citizens rate their happiness in the survey as 7.5., which is rather good but not excellent. Inequaland's affluent majority rate their happiness as 8.2 and the discriminated minority as only 5.5. Therefore, fifth of the population of Inequalityland are in dire straits. However, measured by averages, the perceived happiness of Equaland is 7.5 and that of Inequaland is 7.66, so Inequaland fares much better in the comparison. Averages place bias on the well-being of majorities. Which country do you think has a better situation? Which country would you rather live in if it was not possible to predict whether you would end up in the prosperous majority or underprivileged minority?
The above assumption is that the estimation of perceived happiness is received from the entire population. In reality, mass surveys are only conducted on a randomly selected group which, because of its large size, is assumed to represent the entire population. In many senses, the assumed representation is correct, but if, for example, participating in the survey requires being reachable by phone, it prevents the most underprivileged part of the population from participating. Therefore, the representatives of this group never end up participating. Of course, their situations may be reflected indirectly in the surveys. The World Happiness Report also includes questions about the perceived goodwill and reliability of one's society. Disadvantage is often reflected in these questions.
Needs and good life
Good life can also be examined from the perspective of needs. Brundlandt's Our Common Future (1987) report connects the well-being and sustainable development first and foremost with the equal opportunity for people to satisfy their needs. The idea is thus that satisfying needs is a necessary essential precondition for all well-being and good life. This does not mean that after satisfying their needs, everyone would necessarily lead a good life. Instead, it means that the essential preconditions for living are met. Other matters related to an individual's well-being depend both on the individual themselves and the cultural environment that influences their conceptions of good life. A society can only meaningfully be expected to guarantee the essential preconditions. Consequently, the socially relevant conception of well-being is depicted as the satisfaction of needs. Needs, however, are not just biological needs such as nutrition and health but also the perception that one can control their own life and make independent decisions. The perspective of needs has been a popular approach to well-being, especially in social sciences that examine what kind of policies advance well-being in a sustainable and equal manner. William K. Lamb and Julia K. Steinberger, for example, have studied how conceptions of well-being emphasising different factors manifest themselves in international environmental policies. According to them, especially conceptions that highlight participation and collective well-being instead of individual experiences of happiness support the achievement of environmental goals.
Would you like to comment something on this section? Voluntary.