Well-being

       I will argue the theory of well-being is the most defensible theory of goodness our class has discussed. I will begin by examining the flaws of equality and deserts, the two theories I found most compelling following well-being. I will then argue the benefits of choosing the objective list theory within well-being, and then conclude by offering a few responses to the objections raised in class. Beginning with equality, I do not believe equality is intrinsically good. I do not believe a lazy worker is entitled the same benefits as a hard-worker, as long as some form of a social safety-net exists, or that those who do good work should be equally happy as those who commit acts of evil. Moving to deserts and borrowing from John Rawls, I believe there are too many factors outside of an individual’s control, including biological luck, to simply say goodness should be based on factors like cumulative moral goodness or past receipt.

       The objective list theory lists things that make well-being go up, things that include, but are not limited to, mental states, desires satisfied, knowledge, achievement, beauty, relationships and autonomy. When considering what is good, humans have the capability to determine what makes us happy in the short and long term, and by rationally considering what makes us happy, we can determine ways to maximize goodness.

       The objection that the view is too paternalistic is flawed. Humans judge the worth of things we consider all the time, and using the objective list theory allows individuals to thoughtfully reflect on their definitions of the good. Second, I believe the Aristotle rejoinder to the objection that the list is just a grab bag is successful. As rational social beings, humans are built for relationships, pleasure, and knowledge, all of which should allow us to pick and choose which of those elements reflect goodness.