Contemporary politics is often thought to be thin on big ideas, or ideology – and to have become nothing more than a battlefield of claims and counter-claims about managerial competence. However, in recent years, political debates in the UK (and more widely) have witnessed the emergence of a concept that evokes the moral theories of Aristotle as well as recent developments in psychology: well-being. The idea of well-being as an encompassing conception of the social good, something that is objectively worth striving for, and is not intrinsically dependent on wealth or economic growth was championed by advisors to the New Labour administration from 1997-2010, and has continued to be part of the policy language of the Coalition government. In 2010, David Cameron suggested that parental ‘warmth’ rather than ‘wealth’ was the most important factor in shaping children’s life chances. More recently, the Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith has stated that there is no necessary link between income and well-being. What is meant, then, by well-being, and why has it become so attractive to politicians in recent years? Can it be the focus of a vision of society that chimes with concepts of sustainability and democracy, or are there good reasons to be suspicious of it?
Iain Duncan Smith: Champion of Well-being? (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
At last night’s Cardiff Philosophy Cafe, our speakers led a wide-ranging discussion on these and other issues. Prof. Robin Attfield (Philosophy, Cardiff University) introduced the concept of well-being, distinguishing it from concepts such as happiness and goodness of character. He noted that well-being can be achieved without one being conscious of it, unlike happiness. Further, it does not require that we get what we happen to want, or as economists say, succeed in satisfying our preferences. Instead, it implies an objective standard of flourishing, that there is something universally good for human beings to have, and that someone who enjoys well-being has obtained this.
