ABSTRACT
This chapter takes up a notorious problem facing well-being policy (WBP): the risk of paternalistically imposing some uniform conception of well-being on a diverse public characterized by deep cultural differences. The chapter assumes Haybron and Tiberius’ “pragmatic subjectivist” position according to which policy may in a sense promote substantive views of the good, but must take individuals’ own values as the standard for assessing benefits and harms—whether or not an objective theory of well-being is correct. From that starting point, it is argued that to a great extent the aims of WBP can be accomplished by focusing on a modest set of “consensus hallmarks of well-being” such as happiness, health, relationships, and rewarding work. Governments can promote well-being without endorsing a particular conception of welfare, and without purporting to sum up citizens’ well-being in any comprehensive metric.
