Value theories and eudaimonism

Happiness can be defined in at least three ways:

A specific emotion, such as excitement or elation. ("I'm so happy to see you!")

General satisfaction, contentment, a lack of longing or unfulfilled desire. ("He was happy at his job.")

Any feeling the goodness of which is directly accessible; any intrinsically positive mental state or experience.

It is this third definition that I am using when I use 'happiness'. Normally, philosophers use 'pleasure' here, but I want to avoid the connotations of carnal pleasure. Likewise, I would replace the term 'hedonism' because of its association with the pursuit of carnal pleasures, but alas there is no term that can easily replace it; it's the standard term in philosophy. I might get away with using 'happiness' over 'pleasure', but I don't think I could get away with a new term for hedonism (Monoaxiology? Ugh.).

'Hedonistic utilitarianism' is basically what I subscribe to. Hedonism refers to the view that only one thing is intrinsically good: intrinsically positive mental states (happiness). Virtue, freedom, people, and so on, are "only" extrinsically good. Utilitarianism says that the right thing to do is the action that maximizes happiness.

I also believe in moral realism. So I'm a "hedonistic utilitarian realist", you could say.

But utilitarianism by itself strikes me as simplistic. Maximize happiness? What kinds of happiness ought we maximize? It leaves too many questions open.

Enter eudaimonism. Eudaimonism is a more specific kind of utilitarianism that attempts to fill in those gaps. We should maximize the right kinds of happiness and in the right kinds of way, and we do that by maximizing flourishing, which roughly corresponds to Aristotle's eudaimonia

In its most basic sense, to flourish is to experience happiness that contains high extrinsic goods and little to no extrinsic evil. Flourishing is virtuous happiness.

However, a difference between flourishing and being happy is that flourishing need not entail conscious experience, as one flourishes when getting a good night's rest, or when receiving life-saving surgery under anesthesia.

While fully unpacking 'flourishing' would take some work, the following is a step in the right direction: To flourish is to be:

1) Properly integrated into a good community; 

2) Pursuing work that fits the best balance between individual talents, desires, and the needs of the community; 

3) Provided for in terms of basic needs, such as nutrition, housing, and medical needs;

4) Provided for in terms of more advanced needs, such as opportunities to self-improve, grow, and work towards your self-actualization;

5) Embodying various virtues throughout your work and life, such as kindness, bravery, cheerfulness, strength, and so on, and to be avoiding vices such as selfishness and hatred; 

6) Experiencing virtuous happiness on a regular basis, the kind of happiness that is high quality, borne of excellent pursuits, and sustainable long-term; happiness that comes with extrinsic goods and not with extrinsic evils; the kind of happiness that is derived from the happiness of others and causes others to be happy themselves, including your future self (i.e. present happiness that sets up your future self to be miserable is not worth it).

The idea of 'flourishing' gives us a deeper, fuller package of ideas than bare happiness, and it's the flourishing of sentient creatures we ought to strive for. The opposite of flourishing is suffering, and the maximization of flourishing and the minimization of suffering explains both why we in fact get out of bed in the morning and put one foot in front of the other and why we ought to get out of bed in the morning and put one foot in front of the other.

A) So we have our theory of value / goodness / badness: Hedonism.

B) We have our theory of what actions we ought to perform: Eudaimonism.

C) We have our theory about the meaning of life and what it means to live a good life: Eudaimonism. To live a good life is to life a life with more flourishing than suffering. The more flourishing over suffering someone has throughout their life, the better their life.

D) We have our theory about the nature of moral truth and moral facts: Moral realism.

E) We have our theory about the nature of moral responsibility and praiseworthiness / blameworthiness: There is no free will and no fair or accurate moral praise or moral blame, but we can preserve common sense moral beliefs despite this.

F) We have our theory about moral motivation: Rational people have no choice but to act rationally, and so moral motivation is baked in. We naturally gravitate toward maximizing flourishing anyway due to its intrinsic and extrinsic goodness.

Side note: I recently discovered The Feeling of Value by Sharon Rawlette. While it looks like she defends a different, though perhaps compatible, kind of moral realism from mine, it's nice to see a defense of the view I take with respect to intrinsic goodness.