Can a morally bad person live well? Can a person without friends achieve well-being? There is long-standing disagreement about the correct answers to these questions. Valerie offers a diagnosis of the debate between those who answer “no” (objectivists about well-being) and those who answer “yes” (subjectivists about well-being).

Valerie suggests that the reason people are divided about this question is that the opposing answers represent two different perspectives on well-being that answer to two different sets of practical interests. Given this diagnosis, the cure is to acknowledge the importance of both perspectives. Valerie argues for a way of doing this that preserves an important subjective sense of well-being.