ABSTRACT 

 
 
 

 
Title of Dissertation: HUMAN FLOURISHING: VALUES AND 

VIRTUES   
  
 Eun Ae Chung, Doctor of Philosophy 2023 
  
Dissertation directed by: Dr. Jing Lin, IEP, HESI 

Dr. Steven Klees, IEP, HESI 
 
 

In the quest to understand what human flourishing is, while ancient philosophers have all 

pointed to virtues as a vital component, today, they have been notably left out of the 

conversation. The purpose of this study is to explore the possible ways the virtues of Justice, 

Humanity and Transcendence could be potentially understood through the analysis of 

individuals’ values. The variations of these understandings are examined by country and world 

regions. Furthermore, to provide more context, the study seeks to determine the relationships 

between these virtues and individual sociodemographic factors, such as sex, education level and 

socioeconomic status, as well as country level factors, such as GDP per capita, the average years 

of schooling at the country level, and gender inequality. Finally, the study also examines the 

relationship between the virtues and subjective well-being (happiness and life satisfaction), 

which is claimed to be an important component of human flourishing. In doing so, the 

overarching goal of this research is to contribute to the growing dialogue on human flourishing 

and make a case for how human flourishing could be understood in various ways, depending on 

individual values and context. This exploratory quantitative research study highlights patterns 

and trends of values in relation to the three virtues as well as exceptions. Furthermore, the 

findings of the study show the importance of acknowledging differing definitions of human 

flourishing as well as including context and environment of individuals when discussing an 

important topic as human flourishing.   



 

 

 

 

 

 

HUMAN FLOURISHING: VALUES AND VIRTUES 

 

by 

 

Eun Ae Chung 

 

 

Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the  
University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment 

of the requirements for the degree of 
Doctor of Philosophy 

2023 
 
 

 
Advisory Committee: 
Dr. Jing Lin, Co-chair 
Dr. Steven Klees, Co-chair 
Dr. Sachi Edwards 
Dr. Claudia Galindo 
Dr. Francine H. Hultgren 
 
 
 
 
 
 



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
© Copyright by 
Eun Ae Chung 

2023 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



 ii 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
 
I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation to all the individuals who have supported 

me through the dissertation process. First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisors and 

co-chairs, Dr. Jing Lin and Dr. Steven Klees, for their guidance, patience, and unwavering 

support throughout the whole process. Their insights, feedback, suggestions, and words of 

encouragement have been vital in shaping the direction and quality of my study. I would also 

like to thank the members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Sachi Edwards, who supported me 

from all the way in Japan, Dr. Claudia Galindo, for thoughtful guidance and feedback on my 

methodology, and Dr. Francine Hultgren for the thoughtful suggestions to my difficult research 

topic. Their expertise and feedback have greatly contributed to the overall quality of the work.  

I am also thankful for my family for their unwavering support, encouragement, patience, and 

understanding throughout this journey. I would also like to thank the Usatin family, particularly 

Roman, for helping me through my analysis process. Finally, I would like to express my utmost 

appreciation, love, and gratitude to my partner, best friend, and husband, Shai Zacaraev. I would 

not have possibly finished this dissertation without his support, belief in me, and unwavering 

love. To everyone who have played a part, big or small, in the completion of this dissertation, I 

offer sincere thanks. I am deeply grateful for each and every one of you.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 



 iii 

DEDICATION 
 

I would like to dedicate this work to everyone in search of a meaningful, fulfilling and 
flourishing life. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 



 iv 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................ ii 

DEDICATION .......................................................................................................................... iii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... iv 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 1 
Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................................ 1 

Purpose and Significance of the Study .................................................................................... 2 
Research Questions ................................................................................................................. 3 

Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................................... 4 
Definition of Relevant Terms .................................................................................................. 5 

Positionality ............................................................................................................................ 6 
Organization of the Study ....................................................................................................... 7 

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................... 8 
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 8 

Ancient Philosophies of Human Flourishing ........................................................................... 8 
Major Monotheistic Religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam ........................................... 16 

Scientific Approaches to Human Flourishing ........................................................................ 18 
Current Day Research on Human Flourishing ....................................................................... 21 

Domains and Models of Human Flourishing ......................................................................... 24 
Virtues and Values ................................................................................................................ 31 

Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................................... 38 
Variables: Justice, Humanity, and Transcendence as Virtues, and Subjective Wellbeing ....... 43 

Summary and Implications.................................................................................................... 48 
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................. 51 

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 51 
Research Questions ............................................................................................................... 52 

Data Source .......................................................................................................................... 52 
Summary .............................................................................................................................. 66 

CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ............................................................................. 67 
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 67 

Research Question 1: What are the differences in understandings of the virtues of Justice, 
Humanities, and Transcendence across countries? World regions? ........................................ 71 



 v 

Research Question 2: What are, if any, the differences in understandings of the virtues of 
Justice, Humanities and Transcendence by gender, SES, and education level? ...................... 89 

Research Question 3: What is, if any, the relationship between the understandings of the 
virtues of Justice, Humanity, and Transcendence and subjective wellbeing (happiness and life 
satisfaction)? ....................................................................................................................... 112 

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................. 128 

Summary of Key Findings and Implications........................................................................ 129 
Human Flourishing, Values and Virtues .............................................................................. 145 

Limitations ......................................................................................................................... 147 
Recommendations for Future Research and Conclusion ...................................................... 147 

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 151 
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 208 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



 vi 

LIST OF TABLES 
Table 1 World Values Survey 7 (2017-2020) Country, World Region, and Sample Sizes……………………54 

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for Country Level Factors……………..……………..……………………...…61 

Table 3 Descriptive Statistics for Justice Variables……………..……………..……………..…………..……68 

Table 4 Descriptive Statistics for Humanity Variables……………..……………..……………………….…..69 

Table 5 Descriptive Statistics for Transcendence Variables……………..……………..……………………...70 

Table 6 Income Views Descriptive Statistics by Country……………..……………..…………………….....155 

Table 7 Responsibility Descriptive Statistics by Country……………..……………..…………………...…..156 

Table 8 Freedom vs Equality Descriptive Statistics by Country……………..……………..…………...……157 

Table 9 Political Action Descriptive Statistics by Country……………..……………..……………………...158 

Table 10 Close Relationships Descriptive Statistics by Country……………..………………………..………159 

Table 11 Kindness Descriptive Statistics by Country……………..……………..…………………...………..160 

Table 12 Trust Descriptive Statistics by Country……………..……………..………………………..………..161 

Table 13 Trust Circle Descriptive Statistics by Country……………..……………..…………….…...……….162 

Table 14 Importance of Religion Descriptive Statistics by Country……………..……………………….……163 

Table 15 Importance of God Descriptive Statistics by Country……………..……………..…………...……...164 

Table 16 Meaning of Religion 1 Descriptive Statistics by Country……………..………………………..……165 

Table 17 Meaning of Religion 2 Descriptive Statistics by Country……………..………………………..……166 

Table 18 Science vs Faith Descriptive Statistics by Country……………..……………..……………...……...167 

Table 19 Correlations at the Individual Level for Justice Variables……………..………………….……..……76 

Table 20 Correlations at the Individual Level for Humanity Variables……………..………………………..…77 

Table 21 Correlations at the Individual Level for Transcendence Variables……………..……….……….……78 

Table 22 Justice Correlations by Country……………..……………..………...…………………..………..…168 

Table 23 Humanity Correlations by Country……………..……………..………...……………….…………..169 

Table 24 Transcendence Correlations by Country……………..…………………………………….………...170 

Table 25 Descriptive Statistics for Demographic Variables……………..……………………………………...90 

Table 26 Correlations of Sociodemographic Variables……………..……………..……………………..……...91 

Table 27 Correlations at the Individual Level - Justice Variables with Sociodemographic………………….…91 

Table 28 Correlations at the Individual Level - Humanity Variables with Sociodemographic…….…….…..…92 

Table 29 Correlations at the Individual Level – Transcendence Variables with Sociodemographic…………...93 

Table 30 Justice Variables and Sex Correlations……………..……………..………………………………....171 

Table 31 Justice Variables and Education Level Correlations……………..……………………...…………...172 

Table 32 Justice Variables and Subjective Social Class Correlations……………..…………………….…..…173 

Table 33 Justice Variables and Income Level Correlations……………..…………….……..……...………... 174 

Table 34 Humanity Variables and Sex Correlations……………..……………..…………..…………….…... 175 

Table 35 Humanity Variables and Education Level Correlations……………..……………….…..…..………176  

Table 36 Humanity Variables and Subjective Social Class Correlations……………..………....……….…….177 

Table 37 Humanity Variables and Income Level Correlations……………..……………..….…..…….……...178 

Table 38 Transcendence Variables and Sex Correlations……………..……………..……………...….……...179 

Table 39 Transcendence Variables and Education Level Correlations……………..………………………….180  



 vii 

Table 40 Transcendence Variables and Subjective Social Class Correlations……………..…………..………181 

Table 41 Transcendence Variables and Income Level Correlations……………..…………………...……..…181 

Table 42 Descriptive Statistics for Country Level Variables……………..……………………...…..………...182 

Table 43 Income Views Multilevel Modeling……………..……………..………………….…………….…...183 

Table 44 Responsibility Multilevel Modeling……………..……………..………………………………..…...185 

Table 45 Freedom versus Equality Multilevel Modeling……………..……………………….……..………...186 

Table 46 Political Action Multilevel Modeling……………..………………………………………..………...188 

Table 47 Close Relationships Multilevel Modeling……………..…………………………………...………...189 

Table 48 Kindness Multilevel Modeling……………..……………..……….......................……………..……190 

Table 49 Trust Multilevel Modeling……………..……………..………...………………..………..…………192 

Table 50 Trust Circle Multilevel Modeling……………..……………..……………………..………………...194 

Table 51 Importance of Religion Multilevel Modeling……………..………………….…………....………...195 

Table 52 Importance of God Multilevel Modeling……………..……………..….…………………….……...196 

Table 53 Meaning of Religion 1 Multilevel Modeling……………..……………………….……….………...198 

Table 54 Meaning of Religion 2 Multilevel Modeling……………..……………………….……….………...200 

Table 55 Science versus Faith Multilevel Modeling……………..……………..……………..…………..…...202 

Table 56 Summary of Multilevel Modeling Results of Virtue Variables……………..…………………...…..109 

Table 57 Descriptive Statistics for Subjective Wellbeing Variables……………..……………………….……113 

Table 58 Correlations at the Individual Level – Justice Variables with Subjective Wellbeing….…………….114 

Table 59 Correlations at the Individual Level – Humanity Variables with Subjective Wellbeing.…………....114 

Table 60 Correlations at the Individual Level – Transcendence Variables with Subjective Wellbeing……….115 

Table 61 Justice variables and Happiness Correlations……………..……………..………...………………...204 

Table 62 Justice variable and Life Satisfaction Correlations……………..………….………………..……….205 

Table 63 Humanity variables and Happiness Correlations……………..……………..…….…………….…...206 

Table 64 Humanity variable and Life Satisfaction Correlations……………..………...…………….………...207 

Table 65 Transcendence Variables and Happiness Correlations……………..……………..………..………..208 

Table 66 Transcendence Variables and Life Satisfaction Correlations………………..…………………..…..209 

Table 67 Multilevel Modeling Analysis for Happiness, All Models……...………..…………………….……210 

Table 68 Happiness Multilevel Modeling Analysis Results……………..…………..……..……………..…...124 

Table 69 Multilevel Modeling Analysis for Life Satisfaction, All Models……………..………….….………211 

Table 70 Life Satisfaction Multilevel Modeling Analysis Results……………..…………...……..……..……126 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



 viii 

LIST OF FIGURES 
 
Figure 1: Values and Virtues based Human Flourishing Framework……………………………..5 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



 1 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 
 

Statement of the Problem 
 

Understanding what constitutes a good life, and the path to achieving it has been a central 

question since the existence of human civilization. From ancient times to modern day, the 

concept of human flourishing has been expressed, developed, and studied in all forms of 

language, terminology, framework, and worldviews. As we continually evolve as a species and a 

society, these differences in approaches have led to variances in understanding what the meaning 

of a flourishing life is. Therefore, we not only have never reached a consensus on which 

definition and path is the “right” one, but also have run into challenges of how to peacefully co-

exist. As the world continually becomes more complex, and the environment ever-changing, it is 

therefore imperative that we understand how all human beings can flourish, despite individual, 

cultural, and societal differences.  

 Ancient philosophers and spiritual leaders all have pointed to virtues as the fundamental 

component to human flourishing. However, in current day, the word “virtues” has become an 

antiquated term, and one that stokes a connotation of an idealized being that is “good” and 

“wise” beyond the average person. Furthermore, having a heavily moral component, virtues have 

been notably left out of many mainstream discussions and approaches to human development, 

perhaps due to the contentious nature of what constitutes as “moral” and “ethical.” As a result, 

despite growing international and interdisciplinary collaboration in the quest to unlock the 

answers to human flourishing, virtues have been mostly left out of the conversation. Within the 

context of the push for modernization, secularization, globalization, and neo-liberalism in recent 

human history, it is not surprising that the ironic desire for both universality and individuality has 

influenced how we are approaching human flourishing today. With the rise of nationalism, 



 2 

political violence, and increased mental health issues all over the world, we are now beginning to 

acknowledge and understand the unintended consequences of globalization and neo-liberalism as 

an avenue to push Western, Euro-centric ideals and approaches to human development. 

Consequently, many opposing voices and worldviews have been suppressed, devalued, and 

marginalized.  

 UNESCO Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Education for Peace and Sustainable 

Development (MGIEP) has recently launched a “Futures of Education” initiative with the 

international call to reimagine and rethink our current ways of thinking and learning, and how 

they can shape our future. The initiative also calls for making human flourishing the central 

purpose of education, arguing that education is the key to reaching all 2030 Sustainable 

Development Goals (Hazlegreaves, 2019). However, as many scholars and policymakers answer 

this call, we must be careful not to once again develop “theories” and “models” to human 

flourishing that leave out the many different understandings and approaches to how individuals 

believe is a life well lived. Furthermore, borrowing from the wisdom of ancient thinkers, I 

believe we must once again not only include virtues in the human flourishing dialogue, but just 

as important, we must also carefully look at how differences in values influence how various 

communities understand virtues. The failure to acknowledge cultural differences in values, 

beliefs, and worldviews puts ourselves back in danger of repeating past mistakes of universality 

and a westernized, “human capitalistic” notion of human flourishing.  

 
Purpose and Significance of the Study 
 
 The purpose of this study is to explore how the virtues of Justice, Humanity and 

Transcendence are understood through analysis of individuals’ values and beliefs. Furthermore, 

the study aims to understand how the variation of understandings of these virtues and values are 



 3 

similar or differ across countries and world regions. In addition, the study seeks to determine and 

analyze the relationship between these virtues and individual’s demographics, such as gender, 

education level and socioeconomic status. Finally, the study also looks at the relationship 

between these virtues and subjective well-being, which is claimed to be an important component 

of human flourishing. These objectives are studied within the country level as well as the world 

region context, looking at whether or not there were notable differences among various countries 

and regions. The goal was to contextualize individual’s understandings of the virtues by 

environment and personhood. 

 As stated earlier, with the rise of mental health issues, in tandem with and perhaps 

because of the increase in natural disasters, political violence, nationalism, and inequalities, it is 

crucial, now more than ever, to understand how we can best support individuals and societies not 

just to survive, but to thrive and flourish. Therefore, this study is important in providing more 

context and meaningful understanding to how individuals from various societies interpret virtues, 

which I argue is the key component to human flourishing. While economic, psychological and 

scientific approaches to human flourishing are very important, a deeper, moral and value focused 

approach is just as important in providing the nuances to the discussion.  

 

Research Questions 
 
The research questions that my dissertation hopes to address are the following: 
 

1. What are the differences in the understandings of the virtues of Justice, Humanity, and 

Transcendence across countries? world regions? (In other words, do understandings of the 

virtues of Justice, Humanity, and Transcendence vary by country? By region?) 



 4 

2. What are, if any, the differences in understandings of the virtues of Justice, Humanity, 

and Transcendence by gender, socioeconomic status, and education level? 

3. What is, if any, the relationship between the understandings of the virtues of Justice, 

Humanity, and Transcendence and subjective wellbeing (happiness and life satisfaction)?  

 

Conceptual Framework 

 The conceptual framework in which this study was conducted drew from the 

International Science and Evidence based Education (ISEE) Assessment’s framework for human 

flourishing (de Ruyter, Oades, & Waghid, 2021) and Crossan, Mazutis, and Seijt’s (2013) value 

and virtue-based orientation of ethical decision-making model. The following is a general 

summary of the framework that underpins this study. More in depth details on this conceptual 

framework are laid out in chapter 2. 

 The International Science and Evidence Based Education (ISEE) Assessment is an 

initiative by the UNESCO Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Education for Peace and Sustainable 

Development (MGIEP) (de Ruyter et. al, 2021) commissioned to develop a working framework 

for human flourishing. ISEE’s human flourishing framework views flourishing as a hybrid 

concept that is both objective and subjective, meaning that while there are objective “potentials” 

that individuals need to develop and enact to flourish, individuals also hold their own views and 

desires on the best path to developing and acting upon their potentials. The values and virtue-

based orientation (VBO) of ethical decision making (EDM) note that values are the motivation 

behind an individual’s approach to experiences and situations that have the potential to develop 

character strengths and virtues. A virtue-based orientation of ethical decisions making is enacted 

through self-reflection, and a circular process where the process becomes habitual (Crossan et.al, 



 5 

2013). From these reasonings, one can conclude that values provide both the motivation and the 

manner in which the virtues are enacted. The developed and enacted virtues, in turn, help one 

develop “potentials” in the way he or she sees fit. These developments in potentials, in return, 

has the propensity to change an individual’s values. While this process could be seen as a 

circular process, it is in reality not unidirectional, but one that is dynamic, in which each 

component influences the others, all within the context of an environment and situation. Figure 1 

below provides a visual representation of the conceptual framework in which this dissertation 

study was conducted.  

Figure 1.  

Values and Virtues based Human Flourishing Framework  

 

Definition of Relevant Terms 

 The terms human flourishing, values, and virtues have various meanings and definitions 

depending on the discipline and conversation. Therefore, for consistency and clarification, I have 

stated in the following, the definitions I used for this study. Further detailed elaboration on each 

terminology are presented in chapter 2. 



 6 

Human Flourishing: This study will adopt ISEE’s definition of human flourishing. 

According to ISEE, “Human flourishing is both the optimal continuing development of human 

beings’ potentials and living well as a human being, which means being engaged in relationships 

and activities that are meaningful, i.e., aligned with both their own values and humanistic values, 

in a way that is satisfying to them. Flourishing is conditional on the contribution of individuals 

and requires an enabling environment.” Flourishing is a hybrid concept: it is naturalistic, culture-

dependent and agent-relative. Flourishing is also both objective and subjective: There are 

potentials that human beings need to be able to develop and enact to say that they are flourishing, 

but human beings also have their own views, preferences, and desires about the way in which 

they best develop and enact their potential. (de Ruyter, Oades, & Waghid, 2021) 

Virtues: Virtues are ‘‘acquired human qualities, the excellences of character, which 

enable a person to achieve the good life’’ (Mintz 1996, p. 827). In essence, virtues are strengths 

of character that have been developed and practiced overtime through consistent reiteration of 

“right” or “moral” actions.  

 Values: Values are desirable, trans-situational goals that serve as guiding principles in 

people’s lives (Schwartz 1996) by exerting internal pressure to behave in a certain way (Illies 

and Reiter-Palmon 2008).  

Positionality 

 In conducting this research study, it is important to acknowledge my positionality as an 

academic researcher. I am a first-generation Korean American doctoral student who has been 

raised and educated in the United States, and therefore my immigrant experience as well as my 

predominantly westernized education has shaped my perspectives and understandings, which 

influences my research process. Due to the clash of two contrasting cultural experiences and 



 7 

values, I bring to this study, my own unique set of experiences, strengths, and limitations. These 

aspects of my identity provided me with the strength to constantly question contrasting views, 

and provide the skills to observe, question, and analyze from various perspectives. However, 

because much of my academic studies, especially in the field of comparative and international 

education has been from a predominantly westernized and American perspective, the way I 

interpret and analyze the data and navigate the research context may be influenced.  

 To address these limitations, I have utilized strategies to attempt to minimize the biases 

that may come about, even within a quantitative research context. First, I have engaged in 

reflexive practices, critically examining my assumptions and potential biases throughout the 

research and analysis process. Furthermore, I have sought to keep diverse perspectives at the 

forefront of my mind through this process by constantly reflecting back on the various 

perspectives on human flourishing throughout history, cultures, and religions. I acknowledge my 

positionality and seek to constantly engage in reflexive practices in order to increase the 

credibility and trustworthiness of this study.  

 

Organization of the Study 

  Chapter 2 is an extensive literature review on the history of human flourishing, popular 

models of human flourishing, how values and virtues relate to human flourishing, and lays out 

the conceptual framework and variables used for this study. Chapter 3 outlines the methodology 

of the study. Chapter 4 provides the analysis and results of the quantitative statistical analyses 

conducted, and Chapter 5 discusses the findings and implications of the results and how the 

values and virtues contribute to the dialogue around the concept of human flourishing today.  

 



 8 

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 
 

Introduction 

 To provide the context and rationale for this study, the following literature review 

explores the history and trajectory of the development of human flourishing through the 

following: 1) an overview of the history of human flourishing, looking into ancient philosophies 

and religions that have had lasting influence on current day society; 2) scientific approaches to 

human flourishing; 3) overview of current day research on human flourishing; 4) popular models 

and domains of human flourishing; 5) values and virtues; 6) conceptual framework of the study; 

and 7) discussion on the virtues of Justice, Humanity, and Transcendence, and subjective 

wellbeing in relation to human flourishing.  

 

Ancient Philosophies of Human Flourishing 

 Since ancient times, in many regions of the world, philosophical, spiritual, and religious 

thinkers have pondered on what it means to live a flourishing life. From ancient Greece to 

ancient China, India, and the Middle East, many have offered and debated what they deemed to 

be the key to living well. Thoughts and perspectives focus on various dimensions, ranging from 

spirituality or a connection with God, to human nature and human potential. To this day, these 

schools of thought have a continuous influence on culture, religion, ethics and people’s ways of 

living overall.  

Ancient Greece  

In Ancient Greece, Aristotle came up with the term “eudaimonia”, which has been 

translated to “human flourishing”, “well-being”, and sometimes “happiness” today (Gorski, 

2017). According to Aristotle, however, eudaimonia was more than just well-being or positive 



 9 

emotions. To truly flourish, Aristotle emphasized the ability of an individual to function at his or 

her highest potential, and virtue, or excellence, as a vital component that enables one’s 

performance or ability to function (Aristotle, 1935). He considered wisdom as the most perfect of 

all virtues and a life of contemplation was viewed as constituting perfect “happiness.” Therefore, 

to flourish was not a permanent state or feeling, but more of a cultivated posture and practice 

(action) that accords with virtue (Rasmussen, 1999). In essence, Aristotle believed that human 

flourishing stemmed from how individuals lived their lives, and the pursuit of wisdom (highest 

virtue), excellence, rational activity, and the full development of potentials (Huta & Waterman, 

2014).  

 However, not all Greek philosophers agreed on what constituted a life well lived. For 

example, Epicurus understood happiness as pleasure or hedone, and deemed it as the ultimate 

good. He argued that by human nature, all our actions were in pursuit of pleasure and the 

avoidance of pain or suffering. Therefore, any such activities and actions that brought about 

pleasure were deemed as good. This is not to say all pursuits of pleasure would bring about 

happiness. Epicurus warned against the pursuit of luxury, for the excessive desire for luxury 

would bring about more pain than happiness. Instead, he understood a pleasurable life as one 

where the mind is free from fears and the body is healthy and gratified with natural fulfilments 

(Bergsma, 2008). Today, we understand this stance on life as hedonism or hedonic well-being. 

On the other hand, Stoic philosophers, aligning with Aristotle’s eudaimonia, defined the ultimate 

goal in life was to live in agreement with nature. However, differing from both Epicureans and 

Aristotelians, Stoics viewed virtue (wisdom in particular) as the only and highest good, and a 

virtuous life free of passions, with the understanding of one’s own emotions, a rational 

judgement, and fulfillment of one’s responsibilities as the ideal way of life. Furthermore, in 



 10 

contrast to hedonism, Stoics viewed pleasure and appetite (desire) as irrational passions (pathos) 

that hindered a person from making rational decisions (Stephens, n.d.). The focus was on 

cultivating the mind and living a simple life free of passions and irrationalities. These various 

schools of thought not only had differing views on what constituted a good life, or human 

flourishing, but also the path to achieving it. However, despite the differences, the commonality 

lied in each viewpoint’s emphasis on self-realization, and the ability to reflect upon one’s self.  

Ancient China  

In ancient China, Daoism and Confucianism were two notable schools of thought of the 

so-called Hundred Schools of Thought that arose during the era of the Warring States (480-222 

B.C.E.), all debating which Dao (Tao) or “the Way” should be followed to achieve a flourishing 

life. In the Daoist tradition, the two most renowned texts are Daodejing, credited to a figure 

known as Laozi or “Old Master” and Zhuangzi, written by Zhuang Zhou. The term Dao has been 

used in various ways in Chinese culture. All could be said to be interpreted as paths to human 

flourishing. To Laozi, Dao or (way) was something Nameless, coming before all things Heaven 

and Earth and the Named (living beings). The Dao was seen to be an almost spiritual force in 

which virtue (de) is given. A flourishing person was a virtuous one who acted effortlessly (with 

naturalness and flow) and with the spirit of the Dao. According to this tradition, virtuous activity 

flows from effortless action, not through the cultivation of particular virtues, and virtues were 

given by the Dao (Lobeol, 2017). Confucius (551-479 BCE) is said to have been inspired by 

Laozi (Laozi’s teaching in the book of Zhuangzi) and took Dao to a more structured and ethical 

interpretation. He taught that the ultimate goal of life was to live virtuously and treat others with 

compassion. His teachings focused not just on individual development, but also emphasized the 

importance of community in one’s journey of development. Unlike Laozi, Confucius believed 



 11 

that through character and virtue development, human beings would be able to inform 

themselves of the proper way to act in certain situations. The instrument of development was 

through the practice of ritual (li), which develops one’s character, therefore allowing the 

cultivation of key Confucian virtues grounded in humaneness (ren) (Cleary, 1992; Lobeol, 

2017).  

As Daoism and Confucianism are perceived as two poles of ancient Chinese 

philosophical traditions, Zhuang Zhou’s Zhuangzi can be interpreted as a midground. Embracing 

a more holistic philosophy on life, Zhuang Zhou interprets a flourishing life as one that is 

disengaged from the artificialities of socialization, and the cultivation of “ancestral” potentials 

and skills, with the aim of living a simple and natural life. (Coutinho, 2015). Much like Laozi, 

Zhuang Zhou questioned the restraining nature of Confucianism and its prescriptive tendencies 

and emphasis on fulfilling societal roles, but in line with Confucianism, understood the 

importance of cultivating skills and virtues as key avenues to performing effortless activities that 

is harmonious with nature yet with acute awareness (Lobeol, 2017; Wong, 2012). 

South Asia 

Diverse religious and philosophical thoughts on human flourishing emerged in South 

Asia as well, namely Hinduism and Buddhism. The vast and varied teachings of these traditions 

focused on the pathway to enlightenment or liberation, which are likened to ancient Greece’s 

eudaimonia or current day human flourishing.  

Hinduism  

 Hinduism has had a long and complex history, and has evolved over the course of 

history. However, a noteworthy distinction from philosophies of ancient Greece and China is the 

focus on theism that was not included in these other schools of thought. While Laozi’s Dao did 



 12 

have a cosmic, spiritual and almost mystical component to it, Hinduism holds the viewpoint that 

there is one supreme God from which all things stem and to whom all things return. The 

numerous gods of the Hindu religion are understood as emanating from the supreme deity and a 

representation of the deity’s existence. Human beings’ lives are seen as cyclical, from birth to 

death to rebirth, as the soul goes through reincarnations (saṃsāra). How one reincarnates 

depends on how one has lived his or her previous life, or karma, which deems all actions of 

having consequences, either in current life or the following. In order to flourish through each 

cycle of rebirth, one must have lived in accordance with dharma (sacred duty), or in a broad 

sense, action that maintains the world order. Much like Confucianism, the duties one must 

perform were prescriptive, and followed codes such as the Laws of Manu. In essence, by 

fulfilling one’s duty according to one’s stage and station in life, one would contribute to 

upholding the order of the world and achieve good karma and consequently good reincarnation. 

However, the ultimate goal in life was to break free from this endless cycle of life and death in 

consequence to one’s actions, and eventually achieve liberation (moksha) and become one with 

brahman, or the supreme deity. The popular devotional text, the Bhagavad Gita, offers one path 

towards liberation, which is through action with detachment of the consequences. The text states 

that when a person ceases to identify him or herself as the actor engaged in actions, but instead 

considers oneself to be a spirit that transcends the action, one can act without the attachment to 

the results. By acting for the sake of dharma and with the purpose of liberation, one ironically 

cannot be obsessed with the actual result of one’s actions (Loboel, 2017). However, by achieving 

a state of disengagement, and accepting all positive as well as negative experiences, while 

continually performing one’s duties, one could possibly break free of this cycle.   

Buddhism 



 13 

 Buddhist teachings have also evolved over time, with many schools of thoughts 

originating from India and China, but early Buddhist idea of human flourishing at the core was to 

escape from suffering and transience (samsara) and enter a state of cessation or nirvana. To 

reach nirvana is to be rid of greed, hatred, and delusion, and followers practiced the teachings 

and practices of Buddha (the enlightened one) to achieve a state of enlightenment. 

Enlightenment, according to Buddhist teachings, “is a way of seeing the changing world and its 

interdependent web of relations and living in the impermanent world in a way characterized by 

clear vision, wisdom, and passion” (Loboel, 2017, pg. 234-235), meaning by freeing one’s mind 

of its afflictive tendencies and obscurations and realizing one’s fullest potential in terms of 

wisdom, compassion, and creativity, one would then be not dependent on the external or internal 

stimuli that bring about momentary pleasure (Wallace & Shappiro, 2006).  

A key distinction of Buddhism to Hinduism is concerned with whether the virtues of 

flourishing (or enlightenment) need to be cultivated or already present in one’s essence. 

Buddhism believes in the innateness of these qualities, but the process of enlightenment involves 

a gradual realization of them in oneself. This realization can be obtained through accrual of 

knowledge, showing compassion to others, and mindful practices and meditation. Hinduism, on 

the other hand, believes that one must work to develop qualities to reach a state of 

disengagement of consequences; in particular, the personal virtues such as self-denial and 

renunciation were emphasized as the virtues that would promote self-improvement (Thadani, 

1990). 

Latin Americas: Buen vivir 

 The concept of Buen Vivir, or Vivir Bien, roughly translating to “good living” or “living 

well” in Spanish encompasses a diverse body of terms and concepts in the Latin America and is 



 14 

said to have originated from and inspired by the Andean indigenous people’s (Quechuas and 

Aymara) concepts of Sumak Kawsay and Suma Qamana (Villalba, 2013). Sumak is considered 

“that which is full of plentitude, is sublime, excellent, magnificent, beautiful and superior” while 

Kawsay is “life, to exist in a dynamic, changing and active manner” (pg. 1429). Some scholars 

agree that the most accurate translation of these concepts could be “life of fullness” while others 

suggest that “good coexistence” or “harmonious life” to be more accurate. Furthermore, these 

scholars note that despite the attempts to fully capture these meanings, there is no equivalent 

translation in Spanish or English that fully capture the meanings of Sumak and Kawsay.  

 Even so, Buen Vivir has become a popular concept in Latin America in response to the 

prevalence of the Western idea of development, as an alternative to “development” that focuses 

on “living well” in a much broader sense. The concept was also a reaction to negative social, 

environmental and economic effects of the classical linear minded Western strategies of 

development, and the negative impacts of development projects implemented by governments 

and development banks in the Latin Americas (Gudynas, 2011). Instead, Buen Vivir discards the 

linear notions of development, advocates for a more harmonious human-nature relationship, 

emphasizes extended communities among individuals, and welcomes discussions and debates in 

order to find common ground for differing views (Villalba, 2013). Furthermore, values are 

recognized based on a more cosmo-centric view, meaning the universe and nature is put at the 

center of defining values, as opposed to an anthropocentric view, where the focus is on 

humankind as of the utmost element of existence. Finally, well-being and quality of life are 

considered in various ways outside of materialistic wellbeing, and puts at the forefront, 

happiness and a good spiritual life in which peaceful coexistence, variety of experiences, 

affection and relationships are welcomed (Gudynas, 2011; Villalba, 2013).  



 15 

 The idea of Buen Vivir welcomes diverse approaches to “development” and a life well 

lived. However, the commonality can be found in the assertion of community life and harmony 

with nature, with accordance with the values of reciprocity, complementarity, solidarity, and 

relationality.  

Africa: Ubuntu 

 Ubuntu is an African term meaning “humanity” and roughly translated as “I am because 

we are” or “humanity towards others.” This concept is said to have been passed down through 

oral literature and first appeared in written literature in South Africa around mid-19th century 

(Odari, 2020; Samkange & Samkange, 1980). There are many definitions and concepts of 

ubuntu, depending on the numerous communities and languages within Africa. However, a most 

recent definition provided by the African Journal of Social Work (AJSW) defines ubuntu as:  

A collection of values and practices that Black people of Africa or of African origin view 

as making people authentic human beings. While the nuances of these values and 

practices vary across different ethnic groups, they all point to one thing – an authentic 

individual human being is part of a larger and more significant relational, communal, 

societal, environmental and spiritual world (Mugumbate & Chereni, 2020).  

Ubuntu generally asserts that society provides human beings their humanity, not spiritual or 

transcendent beings. The concept puts emphasis on the relations between human beings and the 

role of communities. In essence, we are all one, or we are all interconnected, therefore our 

actions impact others. Ubuntu emphasizes human kindness and compassion, and harmony. 

However, it also celebrates the uniqueness of individuals and encourages us to recognize not just 

the similarities but also the differences (Odari, 2020). All beings have different strengths and 

skills, therefore, through mutual support, they can help each other complete themselves. Lastly, 



 16 

Ubuntu is also considered a political philosophy that emphasizes community equality and a 

distribution of wealth (reciprocity), similar to Buen Vivir’s principle of reciprocity. It is guided 

by the ethical principle of the sanctity of life where, “If and when one is faced with a decisive 

choice between wealth and the preservation of the life of another human being, then one should 

opt for the preservation of life” (Samkange and Samkange, 1980, p. 7).  

 In summation, the concept of Ubuntu puts the wholeness of humankind at the center, 

valuing authenticity and kindness, collectivism and reciprocity. A life well lived is one that is 

focused on human relations, sanctity of life, and the focus on what it means to be a human being.  

 

Major Monotheistic Religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam 

 While many religions past and current have also provided insight to how to live a 

flourishing life and the purpose of life, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are three major 

monotheistic religions that have had profound influence on ideas and concepts on human 

flourishing. At the center of these monotheistic religions is the belief of one God, and 

reunification with God is the ultimate goal of human flourishing. The religious texts and 

prominent religious leaders and thinkers of each religion all have offered guidance and direction 

on how a person should conduct their lives, and what is of value and importance in order to 

flourish through life and thereafter. However, at the root of all actions throughout life, all three 

religions emphasize devotion and love towards God, and the virtues that either God portrays or 

commands humans to live by.  

 In Judaism and Christianity, the book of Proverbs, and the Ten Commandments in the 

Hebrew Bible and in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible provide insight into living 

virtuously and the ramifications for living unvirtuously. These texts emphasize the virtue of 



 17 

wisdom and the importance of insight, learning, and the attainment of knowledge (Dahlsgaard et 

al., 2005). Maimonides, a prolific Torah scholar, also echoed these texts, but took a slightly more 

radical interpretation of what it means to flourish as a Jewish person. He viewed flourishing as 

ultimately an intellectual quest and stressed self-actualization through fulfillment of one’s own 

rational or intellectual development (Loboel, 2017). 

 In Christianity, however, the emphasis was elsewhere. Living virtuously alone would not 

be sufficient enough to flourish. Saint Augustine, the author of the doctrine, the Origin of Sin, 

taught that human beings can only find joy or flourishing through grace, or through the 

reconnection with God. He stated that human beings have fallen from grace and needed to 

reconnect to God so that one can be restored and experience happiness or flourishing (Hall et al., 

2010). Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) is said to have merged Aristotelian eudaimonism and 

Christian theology in his teachings in that, like Aristotle, for one to achieve eudaimonia, one 

must require a range of intellectual and moral virtues that enables a person to live a flourishing 

life and develop to his or her full potential. On the other hand, Aquinas also believed that a 

person could not achieve full happiness in this life, for the final step to flourishment is union 

with God. Therefore, in addition to the virtues for self-actualization and development, one also 

needs God to transform one’s human nature so that one can be fit to be in the presence of God 

(Finnis, 2005).  

 Alfarabi (870 – 950 C.E.), the founder of Islamic philosophy, was also known for his 

interpretative teachings on Aristotelian philosophy. In his book, Fusul al-Madani (Aphorism of 

the Statesman), he states that the cultivation and exercise of the virtues of wisdom, cleverness, 

wit, intellect, moderation, courage, generosity, and justice, as a spiritual act that leads to 

flourishing.  However, like Christianity and Judaism, in Islamic religion, the holy book, Qur’an, 



 18 

and its teachings is key to establishing the right relation with God, and a follower’s ultimate 

unification with the sacred being (Dahlsgaard et al., 2005; Loboel, 2017).  

All these philosophies and religions have had lasting impacts on many aspects of current 

day, and they have also had influence on each other and how they have been developed over the 

course of history. Some have proliferated as a result of or in response to the dominant rhetoric 

pervading the globe. While others continue to spread their influence in various ways as more 

“modern” translations take form of the original thoughts. However, despite the differences in 

worldviews and influences, one cannot ignore that all point to the unlocking and development of 

virtues as the key component to human flourishing. 

 
Scientific Approaches to Human Flourishing 

Science is considered as the systematic study of a phenomenon through observation and 

experimentation. Therefore, it is both a system of knowledge and a process. Influenced by 

rational thoughts of ancient Greek philosophers, science has been developed throughout history 

and stemmed into various distinct fields and disciplines, becoming the major way humans 

employ to know the world since the age of Enlightenment, all in the quest for objective truths 

and knowledge. Of the sciences, the field of psychology is most notably acknowledged in its 

pursuit of understanding well-being and human flourishing. 

In psychology, there are two branches that have focused on human flourishing: 

humanistic psychology and positive psychology. Humanistic psychology was developed in mid-

20th century, and Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow are given credit as its founding members, 

although many preceding scholars such as Kurt Goldstein are said to have had profound 

influence on the development of humanistic psychology (Middleton, 2016). Critical of the 

prevalent reductionist views of Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis, which sought to understand the 



 19 

relative influence of the subconscious mind in directing human action, and John B. Watson’s 

behaviorism, which studied the ways in which contingencies in the form of positive 

reinforcement or punishment shape our behavior, humanistic psychologists sought to understand 

what it means to be fully human, and under what conditions human beings could develop and 

reach their full potentials (Waterman, 2013). Humanistic psychology therefore went beyond 

looking at the forces that drive human behavior and focused on the intentional decisions human 

beings make.  

 Abraham Maslow (1908-1970), an American psychologist, is best known for his 

hierarchy of needs theory. He claimed that meeting the basic survival needs (i.e. food, shelter, 

water) was necessary in order to motivate a person to reach for and meet higher level needs 

(security, social, esteem, self-actualization). According to Maslow (1943), the highest level of 

the needs hierarchy is self-actualization, where a person has the capacity for self-transcending 

altruism, or transpersonal experience. He defines self-actualization as “the desire for self-

fulfillment, namely the tendency for him [or her] to become actualized in what he [or she] is 

potentially. This tendency might be phrased as the desire to become more and more what one is, 

to become everything that one is capable of becoming” (Maslow, 1943, pg. 383). By empirically 

studying 18 “self-actualized” persons who he deemed reached their potentials to their highest 

limits, and their life patterns, he sought to understand how human beings could live a full and 

well life (Moss, 2001) and what qualities and behaviors the subjects of study had in common in 

relation to self-actualization. Carl Rogers (1902-1987) is known for providing the crucial clinical 

framework for humanistic psychotherapy. He sought to identify the vital conditions in which 

humans could grow and seek fulfillment through therapy. Rogers claimed that the “curative force 

in psychotherapy is the man’s tendency to actualize himself, to become his potentialities…to 



 20 

express and activate all the capacities of the organism” (Rogers, 1961). Both scholars, in 

divergence from other branches of psychology, believed that human beings were not limited to 

their past and current conditions, but could develop, expand, and reach their highest capacities. 

This stance was radical in a time when the vast majority of psychological research in the 20th 

century primarily focused on understanding why certain individuals suffered mental illnesses or 

did not flourish. Maslow and Rogers took a decidedly different perspective and sought to 

understand just the opposite.  

 Positive psychology is said to have stemmed from humanistic psychology, and while 

many concepts overlap, has become a branch distinct from humanistic psychology. Positive 

psychology today is said to encompass three major concerns: 1) understanding positive 

experiences, such as subject well-being, flow, joy, optimism and hope; 2) studying the 

personality traits of thriving individuals, with focus on character strengths and virtues; and 3) at 

the social psychological level, identifying, learning, and augmenting those qualities of social 

institutions that maintain and boost positive subjective experiences and adaptive characteristics 

of individuals (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). While Martin Seligman and Mikhail 

Csikszentmihalyi first formally established this branch of psychology, it is Maslow who first 

coined the term “positive psychology” four decades prior to Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi 

(Robbins, 2008). However, taking a more “hedonic” approach to well-being and happiness, 

positive psychology focused more on subjective well-being, which has been criticized by 

humanistic scholars who understood flourishing as more than just subjective happiness and 

positive experiences (Robbins, 2008). In response to the criticism, positive psychologists seem to 

have gradually shifted to embrace a more humanistic understanding of well-being or human 



 21 

flourishing. However, many of the research in psychology on human flourishing still make a 

distinction between hedonic well-being and eudaimonic well-being (Huppert & So, 2013).  

 

Current Day Research on Human Flourishing 

 Interest in human flourishing resurfaced periodically over the course of history, and in 

recent years, it has once again gained traction in research in many disciplines outside of 

philosophy and psychology. Many robust studies on human flourishing have been conducted in 

areas such sociology, political science, economics, education, medicine and public health and 

more (Solovey & Weinstein, 2019). While the focus and purpose of understanding human 

flourishing in each field varies, the ultimate objective is to understand in what ways and under 

what conditions individuals and societies can flourish, develop, and reach their fullest potentials.  

 New programs, international forums and conferences, and projects have emerged in the 

quest to expand the knowledge on human flourishing. For example, in 2016, the Institute for 

Quantitative Social Science at Harvard University established the Human Flourishing Program 

with the aim to bring together many disciplines and create and implement systematic approaches 

to the research on human flourishing (Solovey & Weinstein, 2019). Another goal is to integrate 

quantitative social sciences and the humanities in answering questions about human flourishing 

(https://hfh.fas.harvard.edu/). Grenoble Alpes University in France hosted an International 

Forum for Living Well in 2018, with the purpose of bringing together researchers from a variety 

of fields ranging from biology to law, to discuss “the conditions of sustainable development in 

our contemporary societies and the well-living of their members” (Solovey & Weinstein, 2019, 

pg. 275).  



 22 

Similarly, UNESCO Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Education for Peace and Sustainable 

Development (MGIEP) launched a “Futures of Education” initiative with the global call to 

reimagine and rethink our current ways of thinking and learning, and how they can shape our 

future. The initiative also calls for making human flourishing the central purpose of education. 

Dr. Anantha Duraiappah and Dr. Nandini Chatterjee Singh from UNESCO MGIEP argue that in 

order to create global citizens “who possess the critical consciousness to drive active citizenship, 

recognize the inherent interconnectedness and dignity of all life, and instill the values of 

acceptance, equality, respect for diversity, empathy, and compassion” education must be 

redesigned and social and emotional learning must be included in education curricula 

(Hazlegreaves, 2019).  

In 2017, three major US public universities, Pennsylvania State University, University of 

Virginia, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison worked together to establish a Student 

Flourishing Initiative, a project with the mission of helping students from all backgrounds 

flourish by empowering them with knowledges in the sciences, arts, and humanities on human 

flourishing, and creating the opportunity for the students to explore and develop their own values 

and capacities through experiential practices (Student Flourishing Initiative, 2021). Over the 

course of six years, researchers from the three universities created and are now studying the 

impact of a human flourishing curriculum for college freshmen students. This project studies 

10,000 incoming students who took “The Arts and Science of Human Flourishing” course, and 

how the course has impacted the students in their ability to thrive and flourish. Since then, many 

universities through the United States have set up similar centers, initiatives and courses with the 

aim to conduct research on human flourishing and disseminate knowledge and practice for 

flourishing to their university students.  



 23 

Finally, many intergovernmental and multi-national economic and developmental 

organizations have been creating surveys and indices in attempt to capture well-being (human 

flourishing) around the world that the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) cannot capture. For 

example, the World Gallup Poll created The Global Well-Being Index through the Gallup’s 

World Poll that measures five elements of well-being: purpose, social, financial, community, and 

physical. In 2013, the survey was conducted in 135 countries, with a random sample of over 

130,000 individuals who were 15 or older (Standish & Witters, 2014). The Organization for 

Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has also created their own well-being index 

called the OECD Better Life Index, in 2011. This index has become a tool that allows countries 

to compare their state of well-being to other countries and includes 11 dimensions of well-being. 

Finally, the World Values Survey constitutes of a global network of social scientists from all 

over the world, who have been studying the changing values and their impacts on life since 1981. 

The survey includes sections on subjective well-being and happiness, and represents about 100 

different countries that holds nearly 90 percent of the world’s population (World Values Survey 

Association, n.d.) 

In the past decade, the concept of human flourishing has come of interest at the global 

level, with collaborations happening across disciplines, countries, and institutions. The need to 

understand from various perspectives, frameworks, and fields seems to have become of vital 

importance, for unlocking the mystery to human potential and nourishment involves all facets of 

human life. However, during the ongoing international efforts to understand human flourishing, 

it is important to pay attention to which frameworks and models of human flourishing are being 

utilized and drive the research.  While there are many, with slight variations, the following 



 24 

section will briefly highlight some of the popular models from various fields, and critiques that 

have come about in response to some of these models.  

 

Domains and Models of Human Flourishing 

 The relatively recent rise of positive psychology and Aristotelian ethics in moral 

philosophy indicate a deep influence of Western thoughts established by the ancient Greek 

philosophers. The foundations of Aristotle’s eudaimonia has been readily accepted in many 

disciplines and fields that are trying to reframe and understand what the meaning of a “good life” 

is.  

Modern Philosophy of Human Flourishing  

To start, a modernized rendition of Aristotelian philosophy, called Neo-Aristotelian, has 

reframed the concept of human flourishing to match current times. Douglas B. Rasmussen 

(1999) lays out the neo-Aristotelian concept of human flourishing, with the view of the human 

good as one that is: objective, inclusive, individualized, agent relative, self-directed, and social. 

In line with Socrates and Aristotle, Neo-Aristotelian thought sees human flourishing as an 

objective good to be desired in and of itself, and is a state of being, and a way of living that 

produces actualization of human potentials. Human flourishing is inclusive in that it includes 

both “generic” goods and virtues, with goods such as knowledge, health, friendship and pleasure, 

and virtues such as integrity, courage, justice and temperance. Flourishing is also individualized 

and diverse, in that no two individuals’ human flourishing are identical. An individual’s talents, 

circumstances and experiences must be taken in conjunction with the generic goods and virtues 

of human flourishing in order for individuals to actualize and achieve it. Therefore, the argument 

is that human flourishing is not abstract or universal, but particular and applicable. Furthermore, 



 25 

the neo-Aristotelian view that human flourishing is agent-relative which means that the ethics is 

personal and in the context of the individual’s disposition, considering the social and cultural 

aspects as well. Human flourishing therefore must be attained through one’s own efforts and 

cannot be the result of factors beyond one’s control. This self-direction is an essential component 

of human flourishing. However, one’s maturation and journey cannot be achieved without 

society. As social animals, human beings require other beings for development. One’s values and 

self-conception are dependent on one’s upbringing and environment, therefore are influenced by 

the relationships with others (Rasmussen, 1999). Contrary to original Aristotelian thought, the 

neo-Aristotelian’s notion of human flourishing emphasizes the personalized factors and social 

conditions for an individual. In addition, this model encourages “moral pluralism,” meaning 

having diverse and equally valid moral values, norms and virtues, as opposed to impersonal 

rational ethics, acknowledging the complexities of life in the modern world.   

In conjunction with the rise of globalization in the 1980’s, Amartya Sen’s capabilities 

approach to human flourishing gained attention in the realm of philosophy, virtue ethics and 

welfare economics. In light of controversies and issues that have manifested from globalization, 

the theory sought to develop moral reasoning across borders. Borders include religion, gender, 

ethnicity, race, class, sexuality, countries and much more. Amartya Sen, an economic theorist, 

created the capabilities approach theory with the purpose of considering cross-cultural 

judgements on the quality of life and human well-being (flourishing). Sen identifies two 

important aspects of an individual’s well-being: functionings and capabilities. Functionings, 

according to Sen, are the various activities one engages in, such as work or play, or various traits 

one has, such as being happy or literate, or the beings and doings. An individual’s life and 

flourishing can be described by the combination of the functionings they achieve. However, Sen 



 26 

argues that merely measuring these achievements is not enough to indicate human flourishing. 

Well-being must include an individual’s “freedom to achieve,” which is demonstrated by an 

individual’s capability. Capability is defined as the set of potential combinations of functionings 

available to an individual and represents the possible methods the individual could choose to live 

(Karimi et al., 2016).  

Sen is said to have avoided the idea of having a set list of capabilities, instead arguing for 

sensitivity to geographical location, social history and cultural values (Jacobson & Chang, 2019; 

Sen, 2000). Nevertheless, scholars have attempted to identify and create a list of capabilities, 

among them Martha Nussbaum. In her book, Women and Human Development: The Capabilities 

Approach (2001), Nussbaum lists 10 principal capabilities needed for maximum human 

functioning. These capabilities are:   

1. Life (normal length of human life) 
2. Bodily Health (reproductive health, nourishment and shelter) 
3. Bodily Integrity (ability to change locations freely, in addition to, having sovereignty 

over one’s body) 
4. Senses, Imagination and Thought  

a. ability to use one’s senses to imagine, think and reason in a ‘truly human 
way’–informed by an adequate education.  

b. ability to produce self-expressive works and engage in religious rituals 
without fear of political ramifications.  

c. ability to have pleasurable experiences and avoid unnecessary pain.  
d. ability to seek the meaning of life. 

5. Emotions (ability to able to love others, grieve and be angry when it is justified) 
6. Practical Reason (ability to form a conception of the good and critical reflection) 
7. Affiliation 

a. ability to live with and show concern, empathy, compassion and the capability 
of justice and friendship 

b. ability to have self-respect and be treated with dignity and equal worth 
8. Other Species (ability to have concern for and live with other animals, plants and the 

environment) 
9. Play (ability to laugh, play and enjoy recreational activities) 
10. Control over One’s Environment 

a. Political (ability to effectively participate in the political life which includes 
having the right to free speech and association) 



 27 

b. Material (ability to own property, formally and materially; having the ability 
to seek employment on an equal basis as others, and the freedom from 
unwarranted search and seizure) (Nussbaum, 2001).  

 
Initially, Nussbaum claimed that these capabilities were static, and cannot be altered. But since 

then, she has changed her stance, stating that there was a possibility that the list could change. 

Furthermore, while Nussbaum also claims that the 10 capabilities are all equally significant, she 

clarifies that practical reason and affiliation are the core capabilities of human functioning, and 

permeate the other 8 capabilities (Wilson-Strydom & Walker, 2015). 

Both Sen and Nussbaum’s versions of capabilities approach have received criticism, but 

for different reasons. The main criticism to Sen’s capabilities approach of human flourishing was 

interestingly about its lack of a concrete list of capabilities that maximize functioning (Robeyns, 

2017), and among the critics was Nussbaum.  On the other hand, critics of Nussbaum’s 

capabilities approach have criticized the universalistic approach to her list (Charusheela, 2009). 

A few scholars, notably communitarian philosophers and critics of neoclassical economics have 

also criticized the capabilities approach for being “too individualistic” and failing to fully 

acknowledge that an individual’s choices are dependent of the society in which they live in 

(Deneulin & Stewart, 2002; Robeyns, 2017). Despite the criticisms, Sen capabilities approach 

have been used to many different areas in development, such as the creation of UN’s Human 

Development Report, the development of the Human Development Index (Anand & Sen, 1994; 

Sen, 2000), while Nussbaum’s contributions to the capabilities approach aided in the fight for 

gender equality (Unterhalter, 2005).  

Positive Psychology Models 

 Well-being or flourishing models developed by positive psychologists are somewhat 

more prescriptive and operationalized in studies as indicators to measure flourishing of an 



 28 

individual or society. The most popular model is Martin E.P. Seligman’s (2011) PERMA 

Wellbeing Theory, which includes five factors that he claims make up well-being. The five 

elements are: positive emotion, engagement (or flow), relationships, meaning (or purpose in life), 

and accomplishment. Seligman states that individuals pursue these five domains of life for their 

own sake and is a part of human nature. The first domain is positive emotion, which 

acknowledges hedonic happiness and life satisfaction as a component. Seligman argues that 

while limited, positive emotions can foster a degree of well-being and build hope and optimism. 

Next is engagement, which involves activities that an individual can immerse in (flow) and find 

enjoyment in, while utilizing and developing one’s skills and strengths. Relationships and social 

connections that are meaningful are also fundamental to well-being, for relationships amplify life 

experiences that contribute to human flourishing. In addition, human connections can help foster 

Seligman’s fourth domain – meaning, which is a sense of purpose and meaning in one’s life. 

Meaning can be derived from belonging to and having a sense of being part of something bigger 

than oneself. Finally, the fifth building block, accomplishment, where individuals pursue 

success, mastery, and achievement in many areas of life (work, hobbies, etc), is claimed to be a 

part of human nature, and another indicator of human flourishing.  

Similarly, Caroline D. Ryff’s (2014) model of psychological well-being includes 6 

“measurable” dimensions, which are: purpose in life; autonomy; personal growth; environmental 

mastery; positive relationships; and self-acceptance. Slightly varying from Seligman, in addition 

to purpose, personal growth, and positive relationships, Ryff includes autonomy, self-acceptance 

and environmental mastery as measurable components that indicate an individual’s 

psychological well-being. According to Ryff, autonomy is the sense to which the individual 

views that one is able to live according to one’s own convictions. Self-acceptance is the degree 



 29 

to which an individual has knowledge and awareness of one’s own self, including personal 

limitations, and environmental mastery is how well one is able to manage life situations.   

Both Seligman and Ryff assert that their models differ from earlier approaches to 

psychological well-being, which focused only on hedonic well-being (positive emotions and 

happiness), and claim to take a more Aristotelian’s eudaimonic approach to human flourishing. 

Furthermore, they both argue that these domains are measurable, with high scores indicating a 

higher state of well-being (Ryff, 2014, Seligman, 2011). Finally, Seligman in particular, views 

his elements of human flourishing as ones that can be built and developed in an individual’s life.  

These models are also not without critiques. Apart from the criticism of the measurement 

scales and methodologies of the models themselves, which is an important process in 

strengthening the validity of a measurement, another form of criticism has come from critics and 

scholars who argue that the models are heavily embedded in Western thought and ideology, and 

do not account for cultural differences and experiences of minority communities (Solovey & 

Weinstein, 2019). Informed by a range of viewpoints, including feminist theory, queer studies, 

critical psychology, and neo-Marxism, these scholars have surveyed the historically changing 

meanings of well-being and happiness, as well as their alignment with the consumer culture. 

They also criticize the focus on individual responsibility and fulfillment without paying heed to 

the wider social, political, and economic circumstances and disparities (Ahmed, 2010; Berlant 

2011; Christopher & Hickinbottom, 2008; Ehrenreich, 20019; Solovey and Weinstein, 2019). 

 The commonality in Sen and Nussbaum’s capabilities approach, and Seligman and Ryff’s 

positive psychology models of human flourishing is the criticism of many models that attempt to 

operationalize and measure concepts that are hard to quantify and are said to be subjective. In 

addition, such attempts to measure leads to an element of universalism that undermines the 



 30 

variety of lived experiences, cultural and religious beliefs, and individual values. Furthermore, 

the emphasis on individual responsibility is considered highly problematic.  

 Tyler J. VanderWeele (2017) from Harvard University’s Human Flourishing Program 

attempts to take those missing aspects into consideration and developed his own Human 

Flourishing Index which draws from various disciplines and studies to form a more inclusive 

model. He presents 5 domains: Happiness and Life Satisfaction; Mental and Physical Health; 

Meaning and Purpose; Character and Virtue; and Close Social Relationships. The first, third, and 

fifth domain have been previously included in the models above, as essential components to 

measuring human flourishing. However, Domain 2: mental and physical health; and Domain 4: 

character and virtue, are usually ignored. VanderWeele makes a case that while some scholars 

argue that some aspects of these domains are already included within the other domains, they are 

not enough to fully capture these aspects. Furthermore, in the case of health, VanderWeele 

argues that health is very important to an individual’s sense of wholeness. Therefore, it must be 

incorporated as a unique aspect to fully understand and assess the whole human being.  

 It is important to note that of all the models presented above, VanderWeele’s is the only 

one that includes character and virtue as a domain. While others have touched upon virtue and 

character as the foundations of their concepts of human flourishing, none so far has explicitly 

included them in their models. However, given that the ancient thoughts that have influenced 

modern understandings of human flourishing all underscore the importance of virtues and their 

developments as an integral component to achieving well-being (philosophy, spirituality, 

religion), it is a wonder it is so understudied outside of virtue ethics and moral philosophy.  

 



 31 

Virtues and Values 

 While the early philosophers and religious leaders have emphasized virtues as an 

essential component to human flourishing, in current day conversations, apart from the research 

in moral ethics, and religious philosophy, virtues have severely been understudied and 

underdeveloped. In positive psychology, where the most headway has occurred in the 

development of human flourishing, many scholars mention virtue in their research, and 

acknowledge Aristotelian philosophy on eudaimonia as the foundation of the field, yet they 

hesitate to include into their research ventures, the major argument to Aristotle’s eudaimonia, 

which is the development of virtues (Fowers, 2008). Perhaps the hesitancy to address virtues is 

because of its vagueness in definition, which is often interchanged with terms like character 

strengths or values. Another hesitancy would be because of the challenge of identifying which 

virtues lead to human flourishing, while keeping in mind all schools of thoughts from all 

worldviews, religions and cultures. Finally, even if scholars were to be able to reach a consensus 

on key universal virtues of human flourishing, the challenge of operationalizing them for the 

purposes of measurement and assessment remains.  

Virtues 

 The definition of virtues has many variations, but in general, a consensus could be 

reached that virtues are “good” or “excellent” human qualities that are manifested through 

repeated action. Specifically, virtues are ‘‘acquired human qualities, the excellences of character, 

which enable a person to achieve the good life’’ (Mintz 1996, p. 827). Some scholars view 

virtues as a subset of values, and many acknowledge the overlap between values and virtues 

(Van Oudenhoven et al., 2014). However, the distinction between values and virtues is the 

“action” component; virtues can be seen as “good” or “positive” values in action and contribute 



 32 

to an individual’s moral development. For example, in the simplest terms, an individual may 

value honesty, but does not necessarily act in an honest manner. While valuing this trait, only 

through continuous acts of honesty can the individual turn it into a virtue. It is through the 

virtuous acts that enables an individual to achieve a good life. Furthermore, “good” or “positive” 

values implies that not all values may be deemed as beneficial to the individual, while virtues are 

notably tied to “excellence” and “goodness”. As noted earlier, virtues are considered by ancient 

philosophers and spiritual leaders as the key to unlocking one’s path to human flourishing. 

 With the rise of globalization, many scholars have looked to answer whether or not there 

is a converging or diverging of virtues. Some studies point to a consensus on “universal” virtues, 

while others argue that there are distinct cultural or national differences on virtues. For example, 

some scholars in positive psychology have attempted to identify central virtues that are universal 

across cultures through an extensive literature review on various ancient traditions that are 

recognized as having lasting impacts on societies throughout history. Katherine Dahlsgaard, 

Christiopher Peterson, and Martin E.P. Seligman (2005)’s Shared Virtue: The Convergence of 

Valued Human Strengths Across Culture and History identify six virtues: courage, justice, 

humanity, temperance, wisdom and transcendence, through a survey of the most notable texts 

from the ancient traditions of Confucianism, Daoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Athenian 

philosophy, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. These six virtues are said to be a culmination of 

specific virtues that are mentioned in the texts, and are categorized and condensed under similar 

themes. These themes emerged as “core virtues”, or abstract ideals that embodied a number of 

more specific virtues that converged to a “higher order category” (pg. 204).  

The authors acknowledge that there are differences and variance across the traditions in 

terms of which virtue is most important and whether they are explicitly stated or implied. 



 33 

Furthermore, they also recognize that the core virtues do have different meanings, and are valued 

for dissimilar reasons, from one culture to another. For example, in Confucianism, humanity is 

recognized as the most exalted virtue, while Daoism does not. Hinduism emphasizes on personal 

virtues, especially ones such as self-denial and renunciation, which is similar to Buddhism’s 

stress on self-improvement, but contrasts Confucian belief in virtue as a social responsibility. 

However, the authors argue that these differences are minimal compared to the similarities of 

thought and overall themes.  

Nansoon Park, Christopher Peterson, and Martin E. Seligman, takes this study on 

universal core virtues one step further, in another study, Character Strengths in Fifty-Four 

Nations and the Fifty US States (2006) where they aim to identify specific character strengths 

classified under the six core virtues that are recognized across cultures and history. More 

specifically, the study aims to determine which components of character are most and least 

commonly recognized and to see whether this pattern is different or similar across geographical 

and cultural contexts. Through an online survey called the Values in Action Inventory of 

Strengths (VIA-IS), from the Authentic Happiness website (www.authentichappiness.com), of 

over 100,000 adult respondents from 54 nations, the study identifies and categorizes 24-character 

strengths that the respondents self-describe as having. Analysis of these character strengths 

found that across all 54 nations, the respondents similarly scored highest in the character 

strengths: kindness, fairness, honesty, gratitude, judgement, love, and humor. On the other hand, 

the respondents scored lowest in character strengths that fall under the virtue of temperance: 

prudence, modesty, self-regulation. The authors argue that their surprising results suggest that 

despite the common rhetoric around cultural wars happening around the world, people all view 

themselves as having similar interpersonal strengths and struggle with temperance. In addition, 



 34 

they also suggest that this study “may reveal something pervasive about human nature” (pg. 126) 

for the purposes of humanity’s survival. In essence, the authors suggest that despite cultural 

differences, there is a commonality in all of us on what is morally good. 

Park, Peterson and Seligman (2006) state this study on character strengths across cultures 

is the first of its kind, and the insights gained are noteworthy. However, this study is not without 

limitations, which they acknowledge in the study. The use of the internet to conduct the survey 

runs into the issue with generalizability, for only those with internet access were able to take the 

survey. Furthermore, small sample sizes from several countries, as well as the survey being 

conducted only in English is problematic in representation. The authors also found that the 

majority of the respondents in their sample were well-educated. Therefore, the results of this 

study, as the authors noted, may only tell us about the similarity of character profiles in English-

reading, well-educated, computer users around the world.  

On the other hand, other scholars argue that there is strong evidence of differences among 

nations and the importance of various virtues. For example, van Oudenhoven et al.’s (2014) 

study, Are virtues national, supranational, or universal? examines the similarities and 

differences between countries, or groups of culturally-related countries on the perceived 

importance of virtues. Participants from 14 different countries were asked to openly mention 

which virtues they deemed important in daily life, and were also asked to rate a list of 15 virtues. 

Through this study, the authors found evidence that not only did nations or culturally related 

groups of nations had differences in virtue importance, but there also appeared to be some 

distinctly country specific virtues, such as generosity in France. However, the study did also find 

that some virtues were considered “universal” or supranational, such as honesty and kindness. 

Another study by van Oudenhoven et.al (2012) delves deeper into the question of whether 



 35 

virtues are shaped by national cultures or religion. In the first of two studies, conducted in 

Netherlands, Dutch Muslims and non-Muslims were asked to rank order a list of 15 virtues. 

Results indicated that the two groups showed high similarities in their virtue rankings. The only 

virtue that was rated much more important to the Dutch Muslims was faith. In the second study, 

the researchers examined two culturally similar countries, Germany and the Netherlands, and 

compared them to Spain by asking the respondents to rank order the same list of 15 virtues. The 

results to this study showed that cross-national differences in virtue importance far exceeded the 

influence of religion on the ranking of virtues. In conclusion, the authors argue that there is an 

overemphasis on the influence of religion on the values of immigrants, while other important 

factors may be underestimated.  

These studies on virtues across cultures and boundaries all look to not only gain insight 

into whether or not virtues are universal or culturally specific, but also to understand what factors 

influence the variances in importance of specific virtues. And despite the noteworthy strides 

taken in these studies, there are still more questions to be explored around this issue. Although 

Daahlsgard et.al (2005) identify six thematic universal virtues, the authors acknowledge that 

there are variations within the literature on which virtues are emphasized and how they are 

manifested. Studies by van Oudenhoven and colleagues approach their studies by asking 

participants to rank perceived importance of virtues. However, a limitation to these studies is that 

these virtues could be understood differently depending on the individual and his or her 

background. Therefore, perhaps a different approach to discussing the cross-national and cross-

group similarities and differences in virtues could be to look at values.  

Values 



 36 

 Values are broadly considered as “conceptions of the desirable,” or what is desired.  

Values are considered to be individualistic in character and determine what is considered 

important to an individual (Parks & Guay, 2009). Often, values research has been categorized 

values as “preferences” versus “principles.” Values seen as preferences are essentially individual 

attitudes, which is not necessarily related to the individual’s behavior. On the other hand, values 

seen as principles are often interpreted as guiding principles of how individuals ought to behave, 

or personal values. These personal values are seen as motivations to how an individual behaves 

(Parks & Guay, 2009).  Cultural values, on the other hand, are an established of set values that a 

society generally shares, which in turn set cultural expectations, rules, and norms. Values are 

said to drive motivation and behavior; however, they also can change over time. Even if an 

individual’s personal values do not align with his or her culture, the individual may still choose 

to partake in the cultural norms. However, when enough individuals’ values change within a 

society, the cultural values also have the propensity to change over time as well. In addition, 

while values are highly subjective, not all values are considered good, especially in relation to 

one’s well-being (Bobowik et al., 2011).  

 Many scholars have studied the relationship between values and subjective well-being 

and have categorized values in relation to well-being in various ways. For example, Sagiv, 

Roccas, and Hazan (2004) state that this relationship can be viewed from three perspectives: 

healthy values, goal attainment, and congruence perspective. From the healthy values 

perspective, intrinsic values that reflect growth and self-actualization needs claim to help foster 

well-being, while extrinsic values that orient towards approval and admiration from others, 

hinders well-being (Bobowik et al., 2011). Many studies have supported this hypothesis (Kasser 

& Ahuvia, 2002; Schmuck et al, 2000; Vansteenkiste et al., 2006) while others have not found 



 37 

evidence of this (Sagiv & Schwartz, 2000). Therefore, the results of these studies do not provide 

a definitive answer to whether this is true.  On the other hand, the congruence perspective holds 

that values that are congruent with the environmental context leads to well-being (Sagiv et al., 

2004). Therefore, if an individual’s goals are congruent with the context of his or her cultural 

values, or if an individual has values that are socially desired, this leads to the ability to express 

these values and achieve one’s goals, thus higher levels of well-being. When taking these 

perspectives of personal values and well-being, one can see that they are not mutually exclusive. 

In optimal environments that provide an individual’s ability to aim for personal goal attainment 

which reflect psychological improvement and self-actualization needs, the development of 

intrinsic values would hypothetically bring about well-being. However, under harsh, stressful or 

unsafe environments, individuals would give priority to extrinsic values as a means of survival 

(Sheldon & Kasser, 2008).  

At the societal level, cultural values in relation to well-being have also been studied at 

length.  According to Hofstede (2001), collective culture can be grouped into two main 

dimensions: individualism-collectivism and hierarchy or power-distance. Some studies claim that 

societies with individualistic values and greater perceived autonomy had higher societal well-

being, even when controlling for other factors and values (Basabe et al. 2002; Diener et al., 1995; 

Hofstede 2001). Other studies found differences in values among collectivistic and 

individualistic nations or groups in relation to life satisfaction (Hofstede, 2001; Oishi et al., 

1999). From the hierarchy or power-distance cultural dimension, some studies revealed that 

hierarchical countries showed lower subjective well-being, but this changed when certain 

indicators (values) were controlled for (Basabe & Ros, 2005; Diener et al., 1995). A possible 



 38 

explanation made for this phenomenon is that hierarchical cultures “repress” negative emotions, 

therefore, overall lower well-being.  

The studies on values and subjective well-being provide insight into the complexity of 

the relationship between the two. Furthermore, the studies suggest that at the individual level, the 

values one holds may not necessarily be conducive to one’s happiness or growth, for not all 

values are deemed “good” or in line with the environment in which one lives. At the cultural 

level, the relationship between values and subjective well-being is less clearly defined. While 

some studies imply that individualistic and autonomy values contribute to higher subjective 

wellbeing, other studies showed that the opposite, more hierarchical or collectivist societies do 

not necessarily have lower subjective well-being, especially when factoring in other indicators. 

In addition, all of the studies compare values to subjective well-being, which is arguably 

different from, and perhaps only one component of human flourishing. Self-reported happiness 

or life satisfaction does not fully capture the essence of a flourishing individual, which I argue, 

and what earlier thoughts point to, is a much deeper understanding of human progress and 

potential.  

 

Conceptual Framework 

 Informed by the literature above, and as briefly mentioned in Chapter 1, the conceptual 

framework in which this study was conducted ties together an encompassing framework of 

human flourishing and a values and virtue-based orientation ethical decision-making model to 

provide the relationship between values, virtues, and human flourishing. The following sections 

provides more detail into the two frameworks utilized to create this new values and virtues based 

human flourishing framework.  



 39 

ISEE’s Human Flourishing  

 In a recently published research brief by the International Science and Evidence Based 

Education (ISEE) Assessment, an initiative by the UNESCO Mahatma Gandhi Institute of 

Education for Peace and Sustainable Development (MGIEP) (de Ruyter et. al, 2021), the 

meaning and components of human flourishing is laid out, informed by various academic 

disciplines, with intentional comprehensiveness that seeks to avoid the favor of any particular 

theory of human flourishing. For this study, the definition of human flourishing provided by 

ISEE will be utilized, and is stated as follows:  

Human flourishing is both the optimal continuing development of human beings’ 

potentials and living well as a human being, which means being engaged in relationships 

and activities that are meaningful, i.e. aligned with both their own values and humanistic 

values, in a way that is satisfying to them. Flourishing is conditional on the contribution 

of individuals and requires an enabling environment (pg. 2), 

According to this framework, flourishing is a hybrid concept, meaning it is naturalistic, culture-

dependent, and agent-relative. Furthermore, flourishing is also both objective and subjective, 

meaning that there are objective potentials that individuals need in order to develop and enact in 

order to flourish, but at the same time, individuals also have subjectivity in the method in which 

they develop and enact these potentials.   

The framework divides human flourishing to two aspects: optimal development of 

potentials and living well as a human being. Optimal development here is defined as the 

aspirational quality of flourishing, however it is emphasized that optimal development is agent 

relative in two ways: 1) potentials are individualized in preference and level, therefore what may 

be optimal for one individual may not be the same for another; and 2) potentials are developed in 



 40 

the context and influence of different factors such as cultural background, values, and beliefs, as 

well as an individual’s understanding of what it means to live well. The concept of human 

potentials is also open to interpretation, although the framework highlights three possible 

notions: capacity (or possibility), propensity (conditionally predictable endpoint), and capability 

(power and freedom to pursue). In terms of “living well” ISEE also argues that there are certain 

aspects of living that are “good” for all individuals because they distinguish general biological 

life (i.e. animal life, plant life) to a human life. The three “good” aspects are 1) relationships 2) 

engaging activities and 3) agency. These “goods” are stated to be meaningful and satisfying, for 

they are sources of purpose and significance and provide cognitive and emotional value. In 

addition, meaning and purpose are often aligned with one’s own personal and humanistic values, 

which is also in part informed by one’s cultural background. The framework makes a point, 

however, that while positive feelings and happiness contribute to human flourishing, it does not 

mean that individuals have to be happy all the time or about everything they do. 

 Finally, the framework reiterates that human flourishing is a process, or a dynamic state 

of being, meaning that it is in relation to other individuals and the broader world that must 

consider the essential internal and external pre-conditions needed to be met, such as mental and 

physical health, and a safe and healthy environment.  

Values and Virtues based Ethical Decision-Making Model 

 Ethical decision-making models (EDM) have had a long history in various fields, 

including medicine, philosophy, business, and much more; each model sought to present 

variables that influence ethical choice, and provide a theory for how ethical decisions are made 

within organizations (Loe et.al, 2000). However, just as the topic of ethics and morality has had a 

long history of debate, the EDM have also been surrounded by much scrutiny and debate about 



 41 

some of the deficiencies of the existing models. In an effort to create a model that understands 

the role of character in decision making process, Mary Crossan, Dainia Mazutis and Gerard 

Seijts (2013) created a comprehensive model that integrates values, virtues, character strengths 

into ethical decision making with the objective to reintroduce virtue ethics into existing EDM 

theories and bridge some of the theoretical discussions in psychology and philosophy on EDM. 

These business ethics scholars draw knowledge and elements from Rest’s (1986) EDM model, 

Schwartz’ (1996) model of values, and Peterson and Seligman’s (2004) work on virtues and 

character strengths for their values and virtues based EDM model. Rest (1986) provides four 

moral components to his EDM framework: awareness, judgement, intent, and behavior. 

However, Crossan et. al argues that the “moral” component to Rest’s framework should be taken 

out for it “moves beyond values and virtues to incorporate societal norms about what ought or 

should be done (pg. 570).” Instead, social norms should be considered as part of the situational 

forces that influence the four components of EDM in the new model. Crossan and her colleagues 

also argue for a virtue ethics framework for EDM, for it emphasizes the excellence of character 

in defining behavior, as opposed to focusing on outcomes. Furthermore, the reintroduction of 

virtue shifts the questions of focus to “who should I be?” and “how does who I am affect my 

decisions and actions” of equal priority to the usual question of “what should I do?” that has 

been predominantly of focus in EDM research. The authors also seek to reframe an individual’s 

ethical decision-making process to one that seeks to expand his or her perspectives in the process 

of making decisions and taking action that are better informed.  

Within the virtue ethical framework, virtues are defined as “acquired human qualities, the 

excellence of character, which enable a person to achieve the good life” (Mintz, 1996, pg. 827), 

the definition that has been adopted in this study as well. Crossan et. al cites Plato and Aristotle’s 



 42 

interpretation of virtues as the goal of human existence and a necessary activity by all individuals 

in order to create and live in a “good society.” Furthermore, the authors further explain that 

virtues or virtuous acts can only be virtues once they are developed over time through habitual 

practice and regular repetition of actions. Therefore, the natural following question to ask is, 

what then motivates individuals to develop and enact virtues? The authors point to values as the 

motivating factor that encourages an individual to repeatedly acting in a way that reflects the 

pursuit of excellence. Values, therefore, are defined as “desirable, trans-situational goals that 

serve as guiding principles in people’s lives (Schwartz, 1996) by exerting internal pressure to 

behave in a certain way” (Illies and Reiter-Palmon, 2008). In essence, values are what people 

desire or consider as important, and motivate action. Tying back to Rest’s EDM model, the 

authors conclude that it is very likely that individuals with the same virtues have very different 

motivational values, which in turn result in different awareness, judgement, intent, and behavior 

to ethical decisions. For example, an individual who values self-enh