| dc.description.abstract | This thesis is guided by the following question: what, if anything, makes a life meaningful? My
answer to this question is asymmetric welfarism about meaning in life. According to asymmetric
welfarism, the meaning of a life depends upon two factors. First, a life is conferred meaning
insofar as it promotes or protects the well-being of other welfare subjects. Second, a life is made
meaningless insofar as it decreases or minimises the well-being of other welfare subjects. The
meaning of a life is determined by the net balance between these two factors; the more the good
outweighs the bad, the more meaningful a life that is.
I argue that asymmetric welfarism is the most plausible theory about meaning in life. To do
this, I show how such a view captures a variety of intuitions about meaning in life while
defending it from objections. This is the business of chapters 1, 2, and 3. Specifically, chapter 1
lays the groundwork, chapter 2 advances the case in favour of asymmetric welfarism, while
chapter 3 defends asymmetric welfarism from objections.
But some objections cannot be so easily overturned by a mere argument. Such objections do
not just count against asymmetric welfarism, but also support competing theories. In order to
overcome both, I show how such objections, and the theories they motivate, are best understood
as tracking a different, but related, evaluative dimension a life can have. This is the business of
chapters 4, 5, and 6. Specifically, chapter 4 argues that subjective theories are best understood as
being about fulfilment, chapter 5 argues that purpose theories are best understood as being
about purpose, and chapter 6 argues that differing views about the role of morality confuse
morality and significance with meaning. These other evaluative dimensions which stand alongside
meaning in life are fulfilment, purpose, significance, morality, and prudential value. | en |
