Transcending Positive Psychology: Part 5, Satisfaction Isn't the Same as Good

This series has focused upon how positive psychology cannot give a full and comprehensive account of human flourishing because of its commitment to the fact/value split. I make this point in The Shape of Joy. Our case study has been how positive psychology attempts to co-opt the ancient virtue traditions but fails to do so because it cannot speak to the telos of human life. The ancient virtue traditions were metaphysical. Positive psychology, by contrast, is empirical. 

Let me share one more post to illustrate the broader point. You see positive psychology's failure to account for value in many places, not just with the virtues.

Take, for example, subjective well-being. When positive psychologists talk about a science of "flourishing" or "eudaimonia" they don't really mean that. What they really mean is "subjective well-being" or "satisfaction with life." 

By far, the most common dependent variable in positive psychology research is the construct known as "satisfaction with life." The most common assessment instrument used to assess satisfaction with life is the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) developed by Ed Diener and colleagues. Rated on a 1-7 likert scale, the SWLS has five items:

1. In most ways, my life is close to my ideal.


2. The conditions of my life are excellent.


3. I am satisfied with my life.


4. So far I have gotten the important things I want in life.


5. If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing.

This is what positive psychologists mean when they say "flourishing." To be sure, satisfaction with life is vital. No denying that it is important. But satisfaction with life is, at best, only a proxy for flourishing. Being satisfied with your life isn't the same as living a good life.

Here's why. Not to get too judgmental, but take someone like Elon Musk. What would his score be on the SWLS? Pretty high, I'm guessing, given that he is the richest man in the world. What about TikTok wellness influencers? They seem really satisfied with their lives, and tell you so all the time so you can emulate them. What about Vladimir Putin? The Kardashians? Wall Street sharks? Drug lords? Rapacious Christians pastors lording over their spiritual empires? 

Of course I don't know if any of these people really are, deep down, satisfied with their lives. But I raise these examples to illustrate the point that we can think of people who are extraordinarily satisfied with their lives who don't capture what we mean by "flourishing." Seriously, do we want someone like Elon Musk serving as the epitome of "the good life"? Elon Musk as the telos of human flourishing? 

And yet, positive psychology admits this outcome because, if Elon Musk is highly satisfied with his life, he's a specimen of human flourishing. He's living the good life.

Stepping back, just like we saw with the virtues, because positive psychology cannot speak to values it cannot study "the good." And if that's true, how can you study eudaimonia--the good life--when you cannot define or operationalize that life? Devoid of any vision of the good, positive psychology can only assess "satisfaction" with life.  

And satisfaction isn't the same as good.