Eudaimonia

Theodoros Semertzidis

Related terms: Aristotle, ecology, wellbeing, happiness, hedonism, transition through, utilitarianism, virtue ethics, voluntary simplicity 

A Common Misconception, and Eudaimonia vs. Hedonism

In existing research, eudaimonia is frequently falsely equated with the word “happiness.” It is possible that this misconception originated with Bradburn’s (1969) seminal study on “The Structure of Psychological Well-Being,” in which the term was erroneously translated from Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics (Aristotle, 350 B.C.). Aristotle’s argument was that eudaimonia was the highest of all human goods, and it was never defined in one single word, not even a sentence. However, Bradburn, along with other utilitarian philosophers, translated the term as “happiness.” His work continued by offering empirical assessments measuring the extent to which people feel good, contented, or satisfied with their lives, essentially equating hedonism and eudaimonia. This was conceptually contrary to what Aristotle wrote, because he deployed no distinction between “right” and “wrong” desires, something at the heart of what eudaimonia is.

Eudaimonia is not as simple as “happiness” or “flourishing” (another term commonly used as a synonym) but rather signifies a deeper sense of human wellbeing, achieved through a life of virtue, reason, and purposeful activity (it is not a state but a dynamic process) that goes beyond mere pleasure. Plato believed that virtue alone was enough for eudaimonia, emphasising value on the personal level but not the social level (Annas 1993). Aristotle, on the other hand, believed the social aspect to be equally important. Consequently, he adopted Plato’s four main ethical virtues (wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice) and added a proper appreciation of friendship, pleasure, virtue, honour, and wealth to the equation. The way in which all of these fit together can lead to eudaimonia. However, it needs to be understood that a specific definition of eudaimonia never existed, nor should it perhaps exist. It is all about the path that ought to be followed to reach a eudaimonic state, which Aristotle believed could only be achieved at the end of one’s life. It also needs to be noted that virtues are necessary but not sufficient to achieve eudaimonia, with external goods being necessary but also a matter of luck for humans (Kraut 1989).

Since eudaimonia has been equated with hedonism, and since this is something that can be a dangerous conceptually (given that it can lead to metrics issues, which then again lead to misinformed policies), it is important to make the distinction. ‘Hedonism,’ in general, points towards a notion of well-being defined as maximising pleasure and minimising pain (Dolan et al. 2006; Thompson and Marks 2008). Its modern representatives are found in neoclassical economics, utility theory and subjective happiness research (Layard 2010), with the World Happiness Report being a main tool (Helliwell et al. 2016). Hedonic theories of wellbeing are subjective state theories of welfare, while the concept of eudaimonia belongs to objective state accounts of wellbeing (O’Neill 2008).

Ecological Problems and the Need for a Different Approach

Eudaimonia is an interesting concept in the context of ethics, yet how can it be useful in relation to today’s world and its multiple, serious ecological problems?

The year 2024 was the warmest in global temperature data records since 1850, the previous nine years all being in the top-10 (Copernicus EU 2024). Globally, we have transgressed 6 of 9 planetary boundaries (Stockholm Resilience Centre 2023), while social indicators signal varied but mostly negative results. An interesting finding is that countries tend to transgress most, if not all, biophysical boundaries before reaching satisfactory social levels (Fanning et al. 2022). This is a problematic correlation because it shows the inextricable link between well-being and material consumption, while also showing how well-being is not reached satisfactorily despite consumption (Kasser 2022). The industrial revolution started an acceleration through the growth of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Steffen et al. 2015), something strongly correlated with energy and fossil fuel use (Ayres and Warr 2009) and material extraction (Steinberger et al. 2013). However, growth has failed to provide jobs or to keep inequality in check in many countries (Martus 2016; Máté 2010; Piketty 2014). Inherently, capitalist economic growth in affluent countries does not significantly improve wellbeing (Fanning and O’Neill 2019), and it can even undermine wellbeing (Costanza et al. 2014; Gough 2017; Kallis 2014; Vogel et al. 2021).

The contemporary global economy is based on utilitarian principles of wellbeing, which call for the maximisation of pleasure and the minimisation of pain, and much of the research trying to reconcile economic growth with planetary boundaries has revolved around green growth and decoupling GDP from carbon emissions and material use (Steinmann et al. 2017; Krausmann et al. 2017). However, decoupling has shown little empirical evidence of happening (Hickel and Kallis 2020). A different approach is necessary, one that does not affect human well-being negatively. Accordingly, much work is done on postgrowth and what such a future might look like. One such example is degrowth: “Degrowth emphasises the need for a planned, democratic transformation of the economic system to drastically reduce ecological impact and inequality while improving wellbeing” (Kallis et al. 2025). However, other directions are also possible. No matter which direction is chosen, some issues need to be addressed, and the notion of eudaimonia might be helpful in that regard.

Implementation Concerns and the Value of Eudaimonia

There has been a surge in the use of eudaimonia within ecological economics and postgrowth research (e.g., Fanning and O’Neill 2019; O’Neill et al. 2018; Millward-Hopkins et al. 2020). Nevertheless, eudaimonia is not defined, and frequently it is equated with happiness through the use of subjective evaluations of well-being, the Gallup World Poll (GWP) being one such. Some objective measures, like life expectancy and income (widespread use through IAMs), are also insufficient to account for eudaimonia. In other cases (Millward-Hopkins et al. 2020; Vélez-Henao and Pauliuk 2023), it is rightly mentioned that to achieve eudaimonia, certain material standards need to be ensured for all citizens, but once again, these standards alone do not secure eudaimonia.

One important assumption of degrowth, as well as postgrowth work, is that of voluntary simplicity, meaning that people will turn away from consumption on their own accord. This, however, is likely to be wishful thinking. There is much work demonstrating that happiness is related to income, consumption, and carbon emissions (e.g. Lenzen and Cummins 2013; Easterlin et al. 2010; Sekulova and van den Bergh 2016), which shows that a turn to voluntary simplicity will not happen on its own any time soon. Indeed, intentional turns away from materialism and consumption have been rare throughout history (Sekulova et al. 2017), since this change would require a higher sense of purpose and unyielding self-constraint. Perhaps it is an impossibility to expect a change in morals in a short timeframe, enough to alleviate as much as possible the ecological dangers we are currently confronting. Nevertheless, if we do not even attempt such a change, there might be no end to disasters and low levels of human wellbeing. Eudaimonia might not provide an immediate solution, but it does provide a path towards voluntary simplicity, since it teaches us that there are limits to the things we should possess and consume. By reaching for a eudaimonic state, we also embrace some form of voluntary simplicity.

Additionally, a postgrowth transition will bring inevitable political change, and theories of transition have been analysed in terms of the ruptural, interstitial, and symbiotic (Olin-Wright 2010). Although the most likely scenario is that a transition will be a mix of all three, let us assume that it is solely a ruptural transition. This rupture can be a political change, or it could also be based on ecological disasters. Such a rupture will lead to a transition trough (a period where human wellbeing will inevitably see a significant drop before improving after an unknown period of time). In such situations, people tend to go back to status quo structures (if it is a political transition) or else the suffering causes significant social turbulence with unknown results. The “storms” that will inevitably follow such a transition will not be weathered if they are not accompanied by a population that is resilient and hopeful. Social support and resilience are prerequisites for such a change, and there is no reason to believe that most of the current global population will accept an involuntary simplicity when even voluntary simplicity is wishful thinking. Eudaimonia, though, can provide the necessary moral grounding and hope for a better future, based on personal and social goals of reaching for something better.

A Eudaimonic Future

There is a myriad of things that need to be considered to implement a philosophical change in our economy and society, from the very philosophical background of our current thinking to practical issues of metrics and modelling that inform our policies. However, such a change is necessary to stop the damage we are causing to our environment, while at the same time improving human wellbeing. Ecological improvements go hand in hand with wellbeing, and eudaimonia can offer a helping hand in an attempt to improve both. A specific definition of eudaimonia never existed, nor perhaps should it ever exist. As our problems are dynamic, eudaimonia is also dynamic and ought to change alongside our problems. However, we cannot generally discuss ethics and how to reach eudaimonia without acknowledging important conditions of life. And in today’s world, we have serious ecological problems, problems that affect the necessary conditions (material and immaterial) that are prerequisites to achieving eudaimonia. As such, we ought to change our perspective on what is valuable and to what end it is so. Since Aristotle claimed that eudaimonia is the only one of the human goods that is an end in itself, perhaps we ought to respect the conditions (environmental and social) that will allow us to reach this good. First, however, we need to choose this goal, that is, to choose to reach eudaimonia within our lives.

References

Annas, Julia. 1993. The Morality of Happiness. New York: Oxford University Press.

Aristotle, ca. 350 B.C. The Nicomachean Ethics. Penguin Classics.

Ayres, Robert U., and Benjamin Warr. 2009. The Economic Growth Engine: How Energy and Work Drive Material Prosperity. Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Bradburn, Norman M. 1969. The Structure of Psychological Well-Being. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Copernicus EU. 2024. “Press Release, January 9, 2024.” https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-2022-was-year-climate-extremes-record-high-temperatures-and-rising-concentrations (accessed October 29, 2025).

Costanza, Robert, Ida Kubiszewski, Enrico Giovannini, Hunter Lovins, Jacqueline McGlade, Kate E. Pickett, and Richard Wilkinson. 2014. “Development: Time to Leave GDP Behind.” Nature 505 (7483): 283–85.

Dolan, Paul, Tessa Peasgood, and Mat White. 2006. “Review of Research on the Influences on Personal Well-Being and Application to Policy Making.”

Easterlin, Richard A., Laura Angelescu-McVey, Malgorzata Switek, Onnicha Sawangfa, and Jacqueline Smith-Zweig. 2010. “The Happiness–Income Paradox Revisited.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 (52): 22463–68.

Fanning, Anthony L., Daniel W. O’Neill, Jason Hickel, and Niko Roux. 2022. “The Social Shortfall and Ecological Overshoot of Nations.” Nature Sustainability 5: 26–36.

Fanning, Anthony L., and Daniel W. O’Neill. 2019. “The Wellbeing–Consumption Paradox: Happiness, Health, Income, and Carbon Emissions in Growing versus Non-Growing Economies.” Journal of Cleaner Production 212: 810–21.

Gough, Ian. 2017. Heat, Greed and Human Need: Climate Change, Capitalism and Sustainable Wellbeing. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Helliwell, John, Richard Layard, and Jeffrey Sachs. 2016. World Happiness Report.

Hickel, Jason, and Giorgos Kallis. 2020. “Is Green Growth Possible?” New Political Economy 25 (4): 469–86.

Kallis, Giorgos, Jason Hickel, Daniel W. O’Neill, Tim Jackson, Peter A. Victor, Kate Raworth, Juliet B. Schor, Julia K. Steinberger, and Diana Ürge-Vorsatz. 2025. “Post-Growth: The Science of Wellbeing within Planetary Boundaries.” Lancet Planetary Health 9: e62–78.

Kallis, Giorgos. 2014. “Social Limits of Growth.” In Degrowth: A Vocabulary for a New Era, 137–40. Oxon and New York: Routledge.

Kasser, Tim. 2002. The High Price of Materialism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Krausmann, Fridolin, Heinz Schandl, Nina Eisenmenger, Stefan Giljum, and Tim Jackson. 2017. “Material Flow Accounting: Measuring Global Material Use for Sustainable Development.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 42: 647–75.

Kraut, Richard. 1989. Aristotle on the Human Good. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Layard, Richard. 2010. “Measuring Subjective Well-Being.” Science 327 (5965): 534–35.

Lenzen, Manfred, and Robert A. Cummins. 2013. “Happiness versus the Environment: A Case Study of Australian Lifestyles.” Challenges 4: 56–74.

Martus, Béla S. 2016. “Jobless Growth: The Impact of Structural Changes.” Public Finance Quarterly.

Máté, Dániel. 2010. “A Theoretical and Growth Accounting Approach of Jobless Growth.” Periodica Oeconomica, 67–76.

Millward-Hopkins, Joel, Julia K. Steinberger, Narasimha D. Rao, and Yannick Oswald. 2020. “Providing Decent Living with Minimum Energy: A Global Scenario.” Global Environmental Change 65: 102168.

Olin-Wright, Erik. 2010. Envisioning Real Utopias. London: Verso.

O’Neill, Daniel W., Anthony L. Fanning, William F. Lamb, and Julia K. Steinberger. 2018. “A Good Life for All within Planetary Boundaries.” Nature Sustainability 1: 88–95.

O’Neill, John. 2008. “Happiness and the Good Life.” Environmental Values 17: 125–44.

Piketty, Thomas. 2014. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sekulova, Filka, Giorgos Kallis, and Friedrich Schneider. 2017. “Climate Change, Happiness and Income from a Degrowth Perspective.” In Handbook on Growth and Sustainability, 160–80. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Sekulova, Filka, and Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh. 2016. “Floods and Happiness: Empirical Evidence from Bulgaria.” Ecological Economics 126: 51–57.

Steffen, Will, Katherine Richardson, Johan Rockström, Sarah E. Cornell, Ingo Fetzer, Elena Bennett, Robert Biggs, et al. 2015. “Planetary Boundaries: Guiding Human Development on a Changing Planet.” Science 347 (6223).

Steinberger, Julia K., Fridolin Krausmann, Michael Getzner, Heinz Schandl, and Jim West. 2013. “Development and Dematerialization: An International Study.” PLoS ONE 8 (10): e70385.

Steinmann, Zita J. N., Adriaan M. Schipper, Michael Hauck, Stefan Giljum, Georg Wernet, and Mark A. J. Huijbregts. 2017. “Resource Footprints Are Good Proxies of Environmental Damage.” Environmental Science & Technology 51: 6360–66.

Stockholm Resilience Centre. 2023. “Planetary Boundaries.” (accessed October 29, 2025).

Thompson, Sam, and Nic Marks. 2008. Measuring Well-Being in Policy: Issues and Applications. London.

Vélez-Henao, Julián A., and Stefan Pauliuk. 2023. “Material Requirements of Decent Living Standards.” Environmental Science & Technology 57: 14206–17.

Vogel, Jonathan, Julia K. Steinberger, Daniel W. O’Neill, William F. Lamb, and Jagannathan Krishnakumar. 2021. “Socio-Economic Conditions for Satisfying Human Needs at Low Energy Use: An International Analysis of Social Provisioning.” Global Environmental Change 102287.