Nicholas Drake

Australia’s newly established wellbeing framework, ‘Measuring What Matters’ (MWM), seeks to measure social progress and influence policy by reporting on 50 wellbeing indicators within five “themes”. In this paper, we assess whether the MWM framework adequately measures what people in Australia value for their wellbeing by examining both the process of the framework’s development and its content. Firstly, we consider whether the consultation process undertaken was adequate. Secondly, we examine whether the MWM indicators align with existing research on what people in Australia value for their wellbeing. We identified limitations across all aspects of the consultation examined: its comprehensiveness, reach, transparency, and extent to which it genuinely incorporated community feedback into the framework. While the MWM framework was found to broadly align with existing research on what Australians value for their wellbeing, there were some notable divergences. We urge the Australian Government to undertake a comprehensive, wide-reaching, transparent, and genuine consultation across Australia. Furthermore, we recommend that the Australian Government develop new indicators in consultation with the public. Enhancing the MWM framework will help establish it as a cornerstone of government decision-making, and importantly, ensure that it does what it purports to do: measure what Australians value for their wellbeing.

Governments are increasingly using wellbeing frameworks as a primary way to measure economic and social progress. These frameworks aim to measure a population’s wellbeing in order to develop policies that improve its wellbeing. However, there’s strong disagreement as to what wellbeing consists in, both among philosophers and the general public. So, what is it exactly that governments should be trying to promote when they aim to measure and promote wellbeing? My method is to identify the primary conditions for an account of wellbeing for wellbeing frameworks and find the account of wellbeing that best meets those conditions. When we do this, we find that no existing account of wellbeing used for this purpose is satisfactory. I describe an account of wellbeing that has not been used in wellbeing frameworks, which I call the Reflective Value account. I argue this account succeeds in meeting our conditions and so is the best account of wellbeing for this purpose.

This essay defends subjectivism about reasons of love. These are the normative reasons we have to treat those we love especially well, such as the reasons we have to treat our close friends or life partners better than strangers. Subjectivism about reasons of love is the view that every reason of love a person has is correctly explained by her desires. I formulate a version of subjectivism about reasons of love and defend it against three objections that have been made to this kind of view. Firstly, it has been argued that the phenomenology of our focus when we have reasons of love does not fit with subjectivism about those reasons. Secondly, it has been argued that the phenomenology of our motivations when we have reasons of love does not fit with subjectivism about those reasons. Thirdly, it has been argued that subjectivism about reasons of love has deeply counterintuitive implications about what our reasons of love are. I argue that none of these objections succeeds.

There is a common view that the utilitarian theory of John Stuart Mill is morally realist and involves a strong kind of practical obligation. This article argues for two negative theses and a positive thesis. The negative theses are that Mill is not a moral realist and that he does not believe in certain kinds of obligations, those involving external reasons and those I callrobustobligations, obligations with a particular, strong kind of practical authority. The positive thesis is that Mill's metaethical position can be interpreted as a Humean constructivist view, a metaethical view that is constructivist about value and entails the existence of practical reasons, but not external reasons or robust obligations. I argue that a Humean constructivist reading of Mill's theory is reasonable, and strengthens Mill's argument from desire for the value of happiness, an important but notoriously weak aspect of his theory.

In a recent response to Persson & Savulescu’s Unfit for the Future, Nicholas Agar argues that moral bioenhancement is dangerous. His grounds for this are that normal moral judgement should be privileged because it involves a balance of moral subcapacities; moral bioenhancement, Agar argues, involves the enhancement of only particular moral subcapacities, and thus upsets the balance inherent in normal moral judgement. Mistaken moral judgements, he says, are likely to result. I argue that Agar’s argument fails for two reasons. Firstly, having strength in a particular moral subcapacity does not necessarily entail a worsening of moral judgement; it can involve strength in a particular aspect of morality. Secondly, normal moral judgement is not sufficiently likely to be correct to be the standard by which moral judgements are measured.