**2. Eudaimonia: the base of happiness in ancient Greek Philosophy**

The word "happiness" has been present in the field of Economics since the thoughts of the ancient Greeks. With the concept of *eudaimonia*, they refer to happiness as a balanced state, as a form or art of living, as a lasting and prolonged enjoyment, and not as a mere succession of fleeting and intermittent moments of satisfaction [1]. This art of living was the daily practice of the activities that belong to the soul, that, when doing so, humans experimented the highest state of happiness.

Aristotle distinguished two types of value: value-of-use and value-of-change, a dichotomy later explained entirely by Smith. The former referred to the intrinsic aptitude of a good to satisfy a need, and the latter depended on the relative scarcity or abundance of the good. In other words, the use-value of a precise object consists of its particular contribution to well-being. For example, wine provides food and friendship, two fundamental human needs, so it possesses use-value. Cocaine, on the contrary, which does not provide neither food nor friendship nor any other fundamental component of well-being, does not have use-value. The fact that "I prefer crack to wine does not alter this fact; it simply shows me to have corrupt taste" [2]. This is an important differentiation for understanding the preference satisfaction theory, which asses the value of goods regarding its preference or election, nor its intrinsic addedvalue to fundamental components of well-being. In this sense, crack has more value than wine simply to the fact that the person prefers it. As it can be deducted, this implies dangerous assumptions: is an alcoholic the best judge to asses value to alcohol? For this reason, use-values, as we have seen, should have a controlling end: the good life, and "to pursue them beyond this point should be senseless" [2]. However, this implies to define what it means a good life, an issue solved for Oikonomics,1 but completely put aside on the discussions of Economics.

According to Aristotle, there were *external* goods and *internal* goods, which were respectively divided between goods of the body and goods of the soul. Each one, in

<sup>1</sup> *Oikonomike* is actually the word and science used by the Greeks, from which the modern word and science "Economics" is derived. *Oikonomike* derives from the words "oikos," which means "household" and "nomos," which means the management of resources [2]. In this sense, *Oikonomike* means the art of "household management" and includes activities such as viniculture (an important activity held in the Greek society).

### *(Material) Well-Being in Economics: Beyond GDP DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108306*

its own way, would help a person to "become happy" or, put differently, contribute to increase well-being. The external goods would grant material well-being (physical goods), the goods of the body would increase well-being of the physique (health and beauty), and the goods of the soul would bring internal well-being. Given this classification, he considered that the only desirable well-being by itself would be the last of the three, the well-being of the soul. It could not be obtained by the simple sum of the first two. Inherent to the reason of the human being, the well-being of the soul became known as *eudaimonia* [1].

*Eudaimonia* is the most valuable well-being and the one that belongs to one's own soul: *eudaimonia is* that characteristic that is particular to human beings. Only activities in accordance with reason, to the peculiar activity of man and woman, is what would lead them to it [3]. In this sense, true well-being is enjoyed naturally, since people cannot control or manipulate it [4]. This complex construct introduced "refer to a state of mind at all, but to an admirable and desirable state of being. It is a matter of public appraisal, not private awareness" [2].

In turn, the Greek philosopher considered that the only way to achieve this state of inner well-being was through the virtuous practice of reason. In other words, choosing what is truly desirable, that is, what reason and not appetite presents as desirable [1], is how one achieves well-being. For this reason, the Aristotelian perspective to well-being is considered as subjective.

However, Aristotle differentiates the concept of ephemeral pleasure with that of eudemonia (a differentiation that has not been made in the subjective approach to well-being of the utilitarianism and preference satisfaction theory). While the ephemeral pleasures are satisfied with external goods and are motivated by appetite, the eudemonia is motivated by reason—as mentioned above, the activity peculiar to humans—and is not sought for the pleasure that its realization entails, but rather because it is desirable by itself [1]. In this regard, reference [2] adds that the good life is not simply one satisfied desire; it indicates the proper goal of desire. And desire is to be cultivated, directed to the truly desirable.

Well-being, therefore, is a stable, lasting mental quality, a person's way of being, a set of virtues that accompanies them throughout their life [5]. And the virtues, for Aristotle, are those habits or human activities that humans perform in the different spheres of their lives. The virtuous human will have the desire to perform good and noble actions, those that respond to their desires and that will always be pleasant or "delightful" because the actions adjusted to virtue are delightful for the virtuous and delightful in themselves. In other words, well-being required the various excellences of the intellect, such as courage, moderation, generosity, and wisdom.

However, worth to mention, Aristotle pointed out that some "external goods" (thus material) were necessary to achieve the practice of the virtues inherent to human beings. These essential material goods, according to the Greek philosopher, were considered the universal needs, and according to various authors [2, 3, 6] they were land, housing, clothes, and furniture. In this sense, the "just and temperate person' should accumulate those things in a minimum amount and then stop [2]. In other words, a person should get the external goods of a house, clothes, bed, and shoes and then dedicate their life to develop the internal and spiritual well-being. This is why the Aristotelian proposal is considered not only subjective but also objective. In this sense, it has the advantage of appreciating the inherent complexity of well-being in its external and internal components [1]. As pointed out by [7], there is non-interchangeability in the subjective and objective components of well-being. In this sense, every approach to measure well-being should consider both perspectives.

Finally, this objective approach to well-being implies a fundamental notion inside the thought of ancient Greeks: the limit. They believed that, as well there is a minimum level of external goods necessary to achieve the good life, there should also be an upper limit in this threshold. This limit to the material growth was necessary, and they believe, to not hinder the growth of other kinds, such as the spiritual one. This distinction between material and spiritual was very clear for ancient Greeks: they believed that the limits to economic/material growth should be the satisfaction of the universal/objective needs mentioned before. The excessive material growth without any limit was an obstacle for spiritual progress and will lead to a society of "pigs," in the words of the philosopher Plato. Pursuing material growth, thus, will hinder the progress of reflection, enjoyment, and spiritual growth.2 This consists of a powerful idea that is lacking in the field of Welfare Economics (see Section below), where "the more is the better." This undermines not only the qualitative distinction between material and spiritual growth but also a just distribution of the material.
