Eudaimonia and temperance : A pathway to a flourishing life

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Eudaimonia and temperance : A pathway to a flourishing life © 2024 selection and editorial matter, Merja Elo, Jonne Hytönen, Sanna Karkulehto, Teea Kortetmäki, Janne S. Kotiaho, Mikael Puurtinen, and Miikka Salo; individual chapters, the contributors Published version Grénman, Miia; Uusitalo, Outi; Räikkönen, Juulia Grénman, M., Uusitalo, O., & Räikkönen, J. (2024). Eudaimonia and temperance : A pathway to a flourishing life. In M. Elo, J. Hytönen, S. Karkulehto, T. Kortetmäki, J. S. Kotiaho, M. Puurtinen, & M. Salo (Eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Planetary Well-Being (pp. 157-166). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003334002-16 2024 Introduction Humankind has entered the Anthropocene Epoch, in which human activity is so massive that it leaves a lasting imprint on the entire planet and its systems. We also live in a time of transition, where the ecological crisis challenges our future on Earth.Profoundquestionsregardinghumanandnonhumanflourishingarecritical since human activities—particularly production and consumption—are among the root causes of the ongoing ecological crisis. Excessive consumption will eventually result in irrevocable damage, including the deterioration of human wellbeing and nonhuman nature (Amel et al., 2017; Dasgupta, 2021; Díaz et al., 2019; The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), 2019, 2020). Nevertheless, humans are part of nature and depend on its systems. Recently, there has been a growing recognition that humans have a moral responsibility for future generations and biodiversity (Dasgupta, 2021; Díaz et al., 2019; IPBES, 2019, 2020; Van Tongeren, 2003). Accordingly, the solutions lie in transforming human values and behaviour and shifting the prevailing sociocultural, political, and economic paradigms towards embracing enhanced visions of the “good life” (Amel et al., 2017; Dasgupta, 2021; Díaz et al., 2019; IPBES, 2019, 2020). These discussions often occur in the environmental philosophy—a discipline focusing on the ethical relationships between human beings and nature and the intrinsic value and moral status of the environment and its nonhuman components (Brennan and Lo, 2010; Van Tongeren, 2003). What constitutes the good life is also a topical issue in current consumer research and positive psychology. Critical questions are whether and how material consumption and quality of life interrelate. These questions are further fuelled by the 11 EUDAIMONIA AND TEMPERANCE A pathway to a flourishing life Miia Grénman, Outi Uusitalo, and Juulia Räikkönen DOI: 10.4324/9781003334002-16 158 Miia Grénman et al. ongoing ecological crisis that has raised new concerns about ethics1 and individual and collective well-being (Mick et al., 2012; Mick and Schwartz, 2012; PetrescuMag, Petrescu and Robinson, 2019). As a response, transformative consumer research (TCR) emerged from the need to improve human, societal, and environmental wellbeing,whichreferstothestateofhumanflourishinginvolvinghealth,happiness,and prosperity to achieve a good life (Mick et al., 2012). Similarly, positive psychology emergedtoenrichthescientificstudyofhumanflourishing,primarilytoarticulate enhanced visions of the good life and what makes individuals, communities, and societiesflourish(SeligmanandCsikszentmihalyi,2000). The concept of planetary well-being suggests a non-anthropocentric systemic conceptualization of well-being on multiple scales of interaction (Kortetmäki et al., 2021). This concept is based on understanding well-being as a system’s functional integrityallowingcontinuationofitsexistenceandrealizationitssystem-specific characteristicsandcapacities.Planetarywell-beingisdefinedas“astateinwhich the integrity of Earth system and ecosystem processes remains unimpaired to a degree that lineages can persist to the future as parts of ecosystems, and organisms (including humans) can realize their typical characteristics and capacities” (ibid.). The needs-based approach is integral to planetary well-being because all organisms—humanandnonhuman—havespecificuniversalbasicneedsthatmustbe satisfiedtohaveagoodlife(ibid.). In understanding human needs, marketing and consumer research have primarily been built on humanistic psychology, especially on Abraham Maslow’s (1943) motivational theory and hierarchy of needs, consistingofdeficiencyneeds(basicandpsychological)andgrowthneeds(selffulfilment).Notably,planetarywell-beingfocusesonsharedconditionsforwellbeing that equal Maslow’s basic needs (physiological and safety needs). After these sharedconditionsarefulfilled,planetarywell-beingacknowledgestheexistenceof species-specifichigherneedsthat,inhumans,includepsychologicalneeds(love andbelonging,esteem)andself-fulfilmentneeds(self-actualization). In response, we extend the needs-based approach towards moral philosophy, transformative consumer research, and positive psychology by bringing Aristotelian eudaimonia and the virtue of temperance into the discussion as a path toaflourishinglifeforhumansandnonhumans.Eudaimoniaencompassestheaim to pursue a life of meaning, virtue, and excellence (Waterman, 2008). Eudaimonia equates to “living well,” requiring that one identify one’s virtues, cultivate them, and live according to them. According to a Neo-Aristotelian approach, humans should develop what is best within themselves and use those virtues to serve the common good: The well-being of others, society, and nonhuman nature (Mick et al., 2012; Peterson, Park, and Seligman, 2005). Aristotelian ideas lead us to examine how temperance (i.e., the virtue of control over excess) can be achieved in everyday life, how humans can pursue the good life,andhowtemperancecanfosterhumanandnonhumanflourishing.Regarding planetarywell-being,humanscanachieveagoodandfulfillinglifebyreducing materialistic desires, particularly consumption, that are irrelevant to basic human Eudaimonia and temperance: A pathway to a flourishing life 159 needs and well-being (Kortetmäki et al., 2021). However, achieving subjective well-beingwithsignificantlylessmaterialconsumptionmaybechallenging,as, inWesternconsumersocieties,individuals’self-definitionandsociety’scollective definitionarestillfuelledbyever-increasingproductionandconsumption,transmitting the message that “the goods life” is the path to “the good life” (PetrescuMag, Petrescu and Robinson, 2019). Based on this background, this chapter discusses planetary well-being from the premises of Aristotelian eudaimonia, regarding TCR and positive psychology as paradigmatic lenses to address individual, social, and environmental solutions. We elaborate on whether humans can be wise and live well, seeking meaning and temperance rather than prosperity in an economy driven by global responsibility regardingplanetarylimits.Theseconsiderationsbearrelevancetoreflectionson the relationships among material consumption, the good life, and planetary wellbeing. Yet, these considerations contribute to mainstream marketing and consumer research, where such viewpoints have largely been missing. Aristotelian eudaimonia equates to living well Conceptions of happiness and the “good life” have been central concerns for philosophers and great thinkers—from Aristotle’s time, fourth century BCE, to the present (Kashdan, Biswas-Diener and King, 2008; Ryan and Deci, 2001). Originally, the concept of well-being evolved around two Western philosophical perspectives: Hedonism and eudaimonism. Hedonism posits that the pursuit of pleasure is the greatest good and that happiness is the totality of one’s hedonic moments (Ryan and Deci, 2001). Conversely, eudaimonism holds that one should pursue a life of virtue and excellence by focusing on psychological well-being connected to meaningful and valuable actions in opposition to “vulgar” pleasure-seeking (Waterman, 2008).AccordingtoAristotle’sdefinitionofeudaimonia,truehappinessisfound by leading a virtuous life and doing what is worth doing, meaning that functioning well and realizing human potential is the ultimate human goal (Ryan, Huta and Deci, 2008; Waterman, 2008). Aristotle posited that living well requires one to identify one’s virtues, cultivate them, and live according to them (Peterson, Park and Seligman, 2005). Virtue is a trait or quality deemed morally good and is thus valued as a foundation of principle andgoodmoralbeing(Hursthouse,1999).Aristotledefinesvirtueastheexcellenceinhumancharacterandthemeanbetweenextremesofdeficiencyandexcess by which human beings can accomplish their greatest purpose: The highest good ofeudaimoniaorhumanflourishing2 (Sanz and Fontrodona, 2019). This notion is embedded in the concept of eudaimonia: Eu, meaning “good or well,” and daimon, meaning “true self” (Huta and Waterman, 2014). To live well, one must recognize and live in accordance with one’s true self—to identify one’s character strengths and choose goals providing personal meaning and purpose in life (Peterson, Park and Seligman, 2005; Ryan and Deci, 2001). 160 Miia Grénman et al. Living well consists of doing something intrinsically worthwhile rather than being in a certain state or condition, including activities actualizing the virtues of the rational part of the soul (Sanz and Fontrodona, 2019). Thus, Aristotelian eudaimonia is not conceived as a subjective state of feeling (e.g., happiness) or condition (e.g., life satisfaction) but as a way of living wherein one strives to improve by developing oneself through using one’s virtues and potential, meaning when an individualisfullyfunctioning.Similarly,contemporarypsychologicaldefinitions considereudaimoniaawayoflivinginwhichindividualsshouldfirstdevelopwhat is best within themselves and then use their skills and talents to serve the common good: The well-being of others and society (Mick et al., 2012; Peterson, Park and Seligman, 2005). Many recent studies and examples indicate these skills and talents can be extended to the well-being of nonhuman nature (Dasgupta, 2021; Díaz et al., 2019; IPBES, 2019, 2020). The search for an understanding of human well-being has also extended to variousfieldsofpsychology.Interestinthehedonia–eudaimoniadistinctionhas proliferated recently, especially in positive psychology, as many studies address well-being within these paradigms (Huta and Waterman, 2014; Kashdan, BiswasDiener and King, 2008). Notably, while hedonism and eudaimonism are competing ethical perspectives addressing questions regarding the nature of the good life within philosophy, within positive psychology hedonic and eudaimonic traditions complement each other. Several researchers have argued that hedonic and eudaimonicwell-beingindicatorstendtopositivelycorrelateandinfluenceoneanother, implying they are not mutually exclusive but overlapping: Individuals high in hedonic and eudaimonic motives tend to experience the most well-being, known as humanflourishing(HutaandRyan,2010;HutaandWaterman,2014). Virtue of temperance For Aristotle, virtues represent “states of character,” including practical wisdom, prudence,justice,fortitude,courage,liberality,magnificence,magnanimity,and temperance, which are tightly bound (Young, 1988). Temperance is considered one of the most important virtues and a crucial aspect of ethical behaviour (Sanz and Fontrodona,2019).Aristotledefinestemperanceasa“moderationorobservance of the mean with regard to pleasures” (Young, 1988). Accordingly, temperance is commonly understood as a certain balance or a golden mean to pursue pleasures and other appealing desires for an ethical purpose. Sanz and Fontrodona (2019) further noted that temperance represents three other vital characteristics: Temperance is the most elementary and fundamental virtue, a necessary condition for moral development, and is considered self-mastery. The renaissance of Aristotelian virtue ethics and temperance can be found in various fields. In positive psychology, temperance is considered “the virtue of moderation and control over excess,” especially regarding appetites related to food, drink, sex, and money (Peterson and Seligman, 2004). According to Peterson and Eudaimonia and temperance: A pathway to a flourishing life 161 Seligman, temperance is best manifested through self-regulation (or self-control) in monitoring and managing one’s emotions, motivations, and behaviour, protecting an individual against excess appetite and the excess and destabilization of certain emotions. Within TCR, temperance is viewed as helping people relocate production and consumption within sustainable boundaries, serving individual, collective, and environmental aims (Petrescu-Mag, Petrescu and Robinson, 2019). Moreover, environmental philosophy literature increasingly addresses temperance, suggesting temperance valuably contributes to environmental ethics in better understanding of how to interact with nature and our natural surroundings (Van Tongeren, 2003). To this end, temperance is currently one of the most essential virtues not only becauseitpromoteshumanflourishing(individualandcollective)butbecauseit sustainsnonhumanflourishingasanenditself.Nevertheless,nonhumanflourishing is necessary to human beings as we are part of nature and depend on its systems (Gambrel and Cafaro, 2010; Petrescu-Mag, Petrescu and Robinson, 2019). From temperance to sufficiency through societal transformation Aristotelian virtue ethics leads us to discuss temperance in more detail concerning the doctrines of TCR. Due to the ongoing ecological crisis, global consumption mustbedramaticallyreduced,requiringsignificantchangesinhumanvaluesand behaviour, as well as global business structures and policies (Díaz et al., 2019; Gorge et al., 2015; Petrescu-Mag, Petrescu and Robinson, 2019). Temperance can allow humans as well as societal, political, and economic structures to strike a balance between the well-being of human and nonhuman nature (Garcia-Ruiz and Rodriguez-Lluesma, 2014). VariousstreamsofliteraturewithinTCRreflectthecoreideaoftemperance, yet different concepts are used to address this notion: Moderation, simplicity, and sufficiency.Garcia-RuizandRodriguez-Lluesma(ibid.) discuss moderation, referring to the golden mean. The golden mean entails that underconsumption and overconsumption should be avoided to achieve the balance between these extremes. Gambrel and Cafaro (2010) address simplicity as a conscientious and restrained attitude toward materialism. This attitude dictates not only decreasing consumptionbutredirectingittowardsnonmaterialconsumption.Byconfiningconsumption within the planetary limits, humans simultaneously make conscious choices that can cultivate excellence in human character (Mick et al., 2012; Peterson, Park and Seligman, 2005). The concept of sufficiencyemergedatthebeginningofthe2000s,influencedby Ivan Illich’s (1973) notion of “austerity,” promoting an ecologically sustainable but socially enjoyable way of living (Gorge et al., 2015). Gorge et al. (ibid.) discuss sufficiencytoachievealifestylenurturinghumanflourishingandthewell-beingofnonhumannature.Comparedtomoderationorsimplicity,sufficiencyrepresentsamore radical form of consumption limitation. Sufficiency calls for coercive measures, such as decreasing overconsumption, eventually lowering our standard of living. 162 Miia Grénman et al. Sufficiencyisnotconsideredachoicebutasituationofadaptationandresilience. Tothisend,sufficiencyreferstotheconsumptionlevelfulfillingourbasicneedsand strongly challenges our current ways of consumption—or consumption itself. A systemic transformation reaching the entire society is inevitable to address the current ecological crisis. An immediate need for fundamental system-level changes exists, as the human impact of life on Earth has sharply increased since the 1970s, driven by the demands of a growing population with rising income levels. Western societies,whichmaximizetheflowofmaterialcontributionsfromnaturetokeep up with increasing consumption and a consumerist lifestyle, are built on conceptions and beliefs separating humans from nature and ignoring the planetary limits. Accordingly, humans must change their future trajectories through transformative action, addressing the social, economic, and technological root causes of nature’s deterioration (Díaz et al., 2019; IPBES, 2019). The notion of societal transformation has become topical in academic discussions related to the recent ecological crisis (O’Brien, 2018; Sharma, 2007), including transforming values, beliefs, worldviews, and knowledge; the systems and structures, sociocultural, political, and economic relations; and technologies, practices, and behaviours (Schipper et al., 2021). According to O’Brien (2018), societal transformation can occur in three embedded and interacting spheres: Personal (values and worldviews), political (systems and structures), and practical (technologies and behaviour). Individual and collective values and worldviews shape how the systemsandstructuresareviewedandinfluencewhattypesoftechnologiesand behaviour are considered possible to achieve positive change. Regarding the ecological crisis, the personal and practical spheres signify a shift in human values and behaviour from consumerism to the current quest for a good and meaningful life: Integrating meaning into life; striving for harmony and balanced living; embracing a more sustainable way of living, and valuing morality, ethics, and empathy—all highlighting the importance of Aristotle’s timeless virtues (Grénman, 2019). By contrast, the political sphere denotes a shift from excessive production and unsustainable business structures to an increasing emphasis on societal and environmental responsibility addressing the planetary limits (ibid.; cf. Sharma, 2007). Societal transformation requires sufficiency thinking, promote a good and meaningful life, and provide possibilities for a more ecologically sustainable way oflivingasthe“ethics”ofthegoodlifeinsteadofmerelyregardingsufficiencyas asourceofeconomicdisadvantages,slowergrowth,andprofitloss.Societaltransformation can also lead to a flourishing life that considers and embraces human and nonhuman well-being by acknowledging Earth’s limits. Can humans be wise and live well? Focusingonachievingaflourishinglifethrough“functioningwell”iscommon to Neo-Aristotelian eudaimonia and planetary well-being. The latter pursues the possibility of functioning well for all organisms by satisfying basic needs Eudaimonia and temperance: A pathway to a flourishing life 163 and acknowledging the intrinsic value of human and nonhuman well-being. Conversely, eudaimonia seeks optimal human functioning through virtues and excellence and doing something intrinsically worthwhile. In eudaimonia, functioning well refers to the quality of the activity; eudaimonia occurs when an individual is fully engaged in activities congruent with one’s deeply held values (Ryan and Deci, 2001). While these activities may be effortful or challenging and include a negative effect in the short term, they often yield greater overall well-being for an individual and nonhuman nature in the long term (Mick et al., 2012; Peterson, Park, and Seligman, 2005). The severity of the ongoing ecological crisis challenges humanity to take urgent actions concerning transforming human values and behaviour: Moving from hedonic happiness to living well. This shift already occurs in Western societies while excessive material consumption continues expanding, leading to the critical question of whether humans have the wisdom and capacity to live well—to practise temperance and self-regulation for the greater good (Grénman, 2019; Mick and Schwartz, 2012). Culture and communities have crucial roles in encouraging and supporting individual choices through shared values, norms, and traditions. Societal and political priorities, decisions, incentives, and regulations can shape the cultural conditions where individualscanmaketheirownchoicestowardssufficiencywhileavoidingsocietal marginalization (Gambrel and Cafaro, 2010; Gorge et al., 2015). In advancing the TCR approach, Mick and Schwartz (2012) discuss wisdom—a superior, complex, and desirable form of knowledge—by drawing from Aristotle’s conception of practical wisdom. Practical wisdom is essential for organizing other virtuestopursuehumanflourishingandthecommongood.Inthisdiscussion,balancingiscritical,reflectingAristotle’semphasisonthegoldenmean:Wisesolutions and behaviours that are not extreme but master large entities. Finding the right balance depends on one’s values, the relative importance of their various interests, and the resulting consequences (ibid.). Due to the ongoing ecological crisis, balancing should no longer concern just the individual level but address the planetary one. Balance is also central in temperance and sufficiency thinking. However, while temperance is practised through moderation and self-regulation (Peterson andSeligman,2004;SanzandFontrodona,2019),sufficiencyisnotconsidereda choice but a situation of adaptation (Gorge et al., 2015). Thus, ethical discussion on whether humans should be persuaded or forced to transform their current way of livingisnecessary.Planetarywell-beingandsufficiencythinkingcallforreducing the current consumption level and secure life on Earth. Conversely, Aristotelian eudaimonia and temperance rely on special human characteristics: The ability to make moral judgments and practise moderation through self-regulation to become a moderate human being and serve the greater good. Forming ethical character and basing one’s actions on virtues necessitate taking responsibility for the well-being of other humans and nonhuman nature. Aligning with the TCR approach, living well implies adherence to humane values, building awareness of the consequences of one’s decisions, and recognizing the capacity to 164 Miia Grénman et al. make conscious choices, contrasting current consumption practices: Unnecessary habitual purchases, following the crowds, or passively adapting to the mainstream market’s easy solutions. Due to the ecological crisis, humans must consider societal transformation to manage the major changes required. Likewise, not only transformative consumption but transformative markets and marketing are needed, given the scale of and time available for the needed changes. Mainstreaming the core idea of TCR to conventional marketing would imply that marketers replace fuelling material consumption with developing their business to serve individuals’ pursuit of well-being and wise ways of living. In the era of ecological crisis, we can sell the idea of refraining from consumption and trading our current standard of living for the good of the planet. By contrast, the TCR approach implies voluntarily returning to the basics and achieving thegoodlifeandhumanflourishingthrougheudaimonia.Whiletheendgoalof planetarywell-beingandeudaimoniaisthesame—aflourishinglife—both“pathways” to achieve such a life require a renaissance of the virtue of temperance. Acknowledgements TheauthorsreceivedfinancialsupportfromtheStrategicResearchCouncilofthe Academy of Finland (Biodiversity-respectful leadership; grant number 345885) Notes 1 Ethics refers to a set of standards of right and wrong indicating what people must do, distinguishing between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour (Petrescu-Mag, Petrescu and Robinson, 2019). 2 Notably, the Aristotelian view represents one sub-type of virtue ethics: not all virtue ethicsapproachescloselyconnectwithhumanflourishing(Hursthouse,1999). References Amel, E. et al. (2017) ‘Beyond the roots of human inaction: Fostering collective effort toward ecosystem conservation’, Science, 356(6335), pp. 275–279. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. aal1931 Brennan, A. and Lo, Y. (2010) Understanding Environmental Philosophy. Durham, NC: Acumen. https://doi.org/10.1017/UPO9781844654482 Dasgupta, P. (2021) The Economics of Biodiversity: the Dasgupta Review. London: HM Treasury. Díaz, S. et al. (2019) ‘Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change’, Science, 366(6471), pp. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. aax3100 Gambrel, J.C. and Cafaro, P. (2010) ‘The virtue of simplicity’, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 23(1–2), pp. 85–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-009-9187-0 Garcia-Ruiz, P. and Rodriguez-Lluesma, C. (2014) ‘Consumption practices: A virtue ethics approach’, Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(4), pp. 509–531. https://doi.org/10.5840/ beq20147313