Hybrid wellbeing and the value of freedom

Abstract Which implications follow for the value of freedom on a hybrid account of wellbeing that appeals to endorsement? On the basis of Olsaretti’s empirical claim that one is unlikely to endorse wellbeing when one is forced to achieve it, I show that standardly on the hybrid account there is a reason to protect people’s freedom to dysfunction, and hence that the freedoms to dysfunction are valuable. I also discuss whether freedom is non-specifically valuable on grounds of endorsement. I advance an epistemic version of freedom’s non-specific value that is especially relevant for a theory of justice that appeals to publicity.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Economics and Philosophy
Published
2025-01-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266267124000439
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Employment and Welfare Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
11.26

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Hybrid wellbeing and the value of freedom

Pietro Intropi
4 citations
Economics and Philosophy
Employment and Welfare Studies
11.26
article

Hybrid wellbeing and the value of freedom

Pietro Intropi
article en
4 citations

Abstract

Abstract Which implications follow for the value of freedom on a hybrid account of wellbeing that appeals to endorsement? On the basis of Olsaretti’s empirical claim that one is unlikely to endorse wellbeing when one is forced to achieve it, I show that standardly on the hybrid account there is a reason to protect people’s freedom to dysfunction, and hence that the freedoms to dysfunction are valuable. I also discuss whether freedom is non-specifically valuable on grounds of endorsement. I advance an epistemic version of freedom’s non-specific value that is especially relevant for a theory of justice that appeals to publicity.

Economics and PhilosophyVol. 41(3)
UCLouvain (BE)
Université Catholique de Louvain, European Commission, Trinity College Dublin, HORIZON EUROPE Framework Programme
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Employment and Welfare Studies
11.26
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.