Well-Being Contextualism and Capabilities

Sebastian Östlund

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-024-00718-x

IF: 4.087

2024-01-24

Journal of Happiness Studies

Abstract:Typically, philosophers analysing well-being's nature maintain three claims. First, that well-being has essential properties. Second, that the concept of well-being circumscribes those properties. Third, that well-being theories should capture them exhaustively and exclusively. This predominant position is called well-being monism . In opposition, contextualists argue that no overarching concept of well-being referring to a universally applicable well-being standard exists. Such a standard would describe what is good, bad, and neutral, for us without qualification. Instead, well-being research is putatively about several central phenomena. If several phenomena are central, a proliferation of concurrently acceptable well-being theories and operationalisations is expected. However, contextualists are challenged to explain how those analysing well-being are not systematically talking past each other. In this paper, I address that challenge. The upshot is that contextualist well-being theories can be justifiably context-sensitive and applied to tailor-made policy-making efforts. I illustrate the benefits by connecting contextualism to the capability approach.

social sciences, interdisciplinary,psychology, multidisciplinary

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The problem that this paper attempts to solve is whether different theorists and practitioners in well - being research are discussing the same topic, or whether there are systematic misunderstandings when they communicate with each other due to different understandings of "well - being". Specifically, the paper explores the debate between well - being monism and well - being contextualism. Well - being monism believes that well - being has a specific essence and is applicable to all situations; while well - being contextualism believes that there is no universally applicable standard of well - being, and the concept and standard of well - being will change with different situations.

The main contribution of the paper is to respond to an important objection to well - being contextualism, that is, if well - being contextualism holds, then well - being theorists will systematically misunderstand each other when discussing well - being. By demonstrating that even using different concepts of well - being, theorists can still share the same research topic, the author defends well - being contextualism. The key to this argument lies in distinguishing formal commitments and substantive well - being properties. Formal commitments refer to theorists' common commitment to finding an appropriate way to describe the essence of well - being, while substantive properties refer to specific components of well - being.

The author further proposes that even if well - being contextualists use different concepts and standards, they can still share the same research topic through formal commitments. Therefore, the paper not only provides a strong defense for well - being contextualism, but also shows its potential application in policy - making, especially in combination with the capability approach, which can better meet the well - being needs in different situations.