A Framework for Political Education and Human Flourishing
Note: This paper defines the purpose of life in material and psychological terms, excluding transcendent or metaphysical claims about life beyond death. It argues that human life has two fundamental purposes that relate hierarchically: survival and fulfillment.
Survival—meeting biological and psychological needs—is universal. All humans naturally desire to continue living and seek to meet basic needs. Fulfillment—engaging in activities producing deep satisfaction and expressing one’s capacities—is individual and diverse. Different people find fulfillment through different paths: creative expression, intellectual work, service, physical achievement, relational connection, and countless others.
A just and well-functioning political system should enable both. It should ensure universal survival and create conditions enabling fulfillment: education helping people discover themselves, economic structures allowing diverse paths, sufficient time for personal pursuits, freedom to choose one’s own path, and respect for diverse legitimate pursuits.
This framework has important implications for education, for understanding individual purpose, and for evaluating political systems. It suggests that education should help people discover who they are and what they are capable of, not merely train them for employment. It suggests that individuals should understand their life’s purpose as pursuing both survival and fulfillment, and that this purpose is available to all, respecting human diversity. And it suggests that we should fundamentally evaluate political systems by whether they enable people to survive and be fulfilled.
For educators and policymakers, this framework provides clarity: the goal should be enabling people to become their best selves, to develop their capacities fully, to pursue what they love. This is the proper purpose of education and the proper goal of political systems oriented towards human well-being.
Abstract
This paper defines the purpose of life in material and psychological terms, excluding supernatural or metaphysical claims about existence beyond death. The paper argues that human life has two fundamental purposes that relate to each other hierarchically: survival and fulfillment. Survival is universal—all humans naturally desire to continue living and meeting basic needs. Fulfillment, by contrast, is an achievement that builds upon survival and involves the full expression of individual capacities, particularly creative and intellectual capacities that distinguish human flourishing from mere biological persistence. This paper defines fulfillment as achieving survival goals while simultaneously engaging in activities that produce deep satisfaction—activities aligned with one’s strengths, interests, and passions. This framework allows individuals’ freedom to define fulfillment idiosyncratically: what produces fulfillment for one person may differ significantly from another’s, and this diversity is not merely acceptable but essential to human flourishing. The paper then addresses the role of governance and politics in relation to these life purposes: governments should create conditions enabling individuals to identify their capacities and inclinations through education and to access opportunity ecosystems that allow them to act on their desires while supporting collective survival. This framework provides a material, empirically grounded foundation for understanding what gives human life meaning, and it explains how to assess political systems based on their ability to enable or hinder human flourishing [1] [2] [3].
Introduction: Why Purpose Matters
The question of life’s purpose is among the oldest and most consequential humans ask. Every cultural tradition, religious framework, and philosophical school offers answers. Yet most answers involve claims about transcendent meaning—purposes beyond death, divine plans, or metaphysical destinies—claims that lie beyond the scope of empirical inquiry and rational demonstration [4].
This paper takes a different approach. It asks: In material, observable terms—in the realm of biology, psychology, and social organization—what can we identify as constituting the purpose of human life? What outcomes, states, and achievements constitute a life well-lived? How should people organize political systems and governance to enable those outcomes? [4]
The answer offered here is straightforward: human life has two related purposes: survival and fulfillment. Survival—meeting biological and psychological needs sufficient to continue living—is universal. Fulfillment—achieving survival while simultaneously engaging in activities that produce deep satisfaction and express one’s capacities—is individual, diverse, and achievable through intentional effort and supportive conditions [5].
This framework has profound implications for how we understand well-being, how we educate people, and how we should evaluate political systems. If people understand the purpose of life as survival plus fulfillment, where fulfillment involves enjoying and excelling at one’s pursuits, then education should help them identify their capacities and inclinations, and people should evaluate political systems based on whether the systems enable them to pursue fulfilling lives [5].
Part I: Defining Life’s Purpose—Survival and Fulfillment
The Two-Level Framework: Survival as Foundation, Fulfillment as Achievement
We can understand human existence as involving two levels of purpose, each building on the previous.
Level One: Survival – Meeting the biological and psychological needs necessary to continue living. This includes access to nutrition, clean water, shelter, health care, safety, and psychological security. Survival is universal; all humans share this fundamental purpose [6].
Level Two: Fulfillment – Having met survival needs, engaging in activities that produce deep satisfaction, meaning, and the expression of one’s capacities. Fulfillment is the achievement of living well, not merely living. It involves doing what one is good at and what one enjoys [6].
These two levels are related but distinct. A person can survive without being fulfilled—living in poverty, oppression, or circumstances that prevent expression of their capacities. Conversely, though less commonly, a person might be fulfilled by engaging in meaningful activities while facing survival challenges, deriving psychological satisfaction from work they love despite material hardship [7].
However, the ideal—and the proper focus of political systems—is creating conditions in which people can achieve both: meeting survival needs while simultaneously accessing opportunities for fulfillment. Therefore, we should evaluate political systems using this proper standard [7].
Survival: Universal and Non-Negotiable
Survival is the foundational purpose of human life. Every human has basic biological needs: nutrition, water, shelter, warmth, and protection from physical harm. Beyond these strictly biological needs, humans also have psychological needs: safety, predictability, social connection, and respect [8].
These survival needs are universal. Differences in culture, personality, values, and circumstances do not change the fact that all humans must eat, sleep, stay warm, and maintain psychological safety to continue living. No one can opt out of needing to survive [8].
Survival is also time-dependent. Early in life, people depend on caregivers to meet survival needs. In adulthood, people typically must secure survival through some combination of family support, employment, community assistance, and government provision. In old age or disability, people may again depend on others. But at all life stages, survival remains a fundamental need [9].
The Role of Survival in Political Evaluation
Because survival is universal and fundamental, the first standard for evaluating any political system is whether it enables people to survive. Does the system ensure that people have access to nutrition, shelter, health care, and safety? Does it prevent systemic deprivation or exploitation that undermines people’s capacity to meet basic needs?[9]
A political system that fails to enable survival is fundamentally failing its basic purpose. A wealthy nation that allows citizens to become homeless, to lack access to healthcare, or to face violence with impunity is failing at the foundational level, regardless of how well it may function in other respects [9].
Fulfillment: Individual, Achievable, and Essential to Human Flourishing
Beyond survival lies fulfillment. You can define fulfillment as achieving survival while simultaneously engaging in activities that produce deep satisfaction—activities aligned with one’s strengths, interests, and passions. Fulfillment is the achievement of living well, of becoming the person one is capable of becoming, of expressing one’s capacities fully [10].
Crucially, fulfillment is not a single state or achievement that is the same for all humans. What produces fulfillment for one person may not be for another. A person could find fulfillment in creative expression, like painting, writing, music, or design. Someone else might find fulfillment in intellectual work, like scientific research, philosophical inquiry, or technical problem-solving. Alternatively, someone might find fulfillment through service, such as teaching, healthcare, community organizing, or caregiving. Another way to find fulfillment might be making things, such as through craftsmanship, building, cooking, or gardening.
The diversity is essential. A just society is not one in which everyone pursues the same path to fulfillment, but one in which diverse paths are available and respected, and in which people have genuine freedom and support to pursue the paths most meaningful to them [11].
Fulfillment as Full Expression of Capacity
Fulfillment in this framework means the full expression of one’s capacities. This includes:
Intellectual Capacity: The ability to think, reason, learn, understand complex concepts, and engage in creative problem-solving. Many people find fulfillment in intellectual pursuits—research, writing, teaching, philosophy [11].
Creative Capacity: The ability to make new things—art, music, literature, inventions, designs. Many people find fulfillment in bringing ideas into existence, in making something that did not exist before [11].
Relational Capacity: The ability to connect deeply with others, to care for them, to raise children, to build communities. Many people find fulfillment in relationships and in contributing to others’ welfare [12].
Physical Capacity: The ability to move, make things with one’s hands, compete, create experiences. Many people find fulfillment in physical pursuits—sports, dance, craftsmanship, outdoor activities [12].
Service Capacity: The ability to identify others’ needs and work to meet them. Many people find fulfillment in helping others, in contributing to causes larger than themselves [12].
Leadership Capacity: The ability to organize others, set direction, make decisions affecting groups. Many people find fulfillment in leadership roles where they can guide collective action [12].
A fulfilling life is one in which people develop and exercise the capacities most important to them, in which they do what they are good at and what they genuinely enjoy [13].
The Integration: Survival + Fulfillment = Human Flourishing
People achieve human flourishing, at the material and psychological level, when they meet their survival needs and simultaneously have the opportunity and support to pursue fulfillment. People live a complete life when they reliably meet their basic needs and can spend significant time and energy doing what they love and excel at.
This integration solves a crucial problem with simpler frameworks. Someone surviving but not fulfilled may be alive but not truly living—not developing capacities, not pursuing meaning, not expressing themselves. Someone pursuing fulfillment while suffering unmet survival needs is likely to fail—unable to concentrate on meaningful work while hungry, unsafe, or desperate [13].
The clear political implication is that governments should be assessed not only on their ability to facilitate survival but also on their ability to foster conditions where both survival and fulfillment can exist together. This is a more demanding standard than mere survival provision, but it is the appropriate standard for evaluating whether political systems serve human welfare [14].
Part II: The Psychological Basis of Fulfillment—Capabilities, Interests, and Meaning
Understanding fulfillment requires understanding what makes certain activities satisfying while others feel empty or oppressive. Research in psychology, particularly in the study of well-being and meaning, suggests several key factors [14].
Fulfillment Through Alignment: Doing What You’re Good at and What You Enjoy
One consistent finding across psychology and well-being research is that people experience the greatest satisfaction when their activities align with their capacities and interests [15].
This alignment operates on two dimensions:
Competence: Humans find satisfaction in activities at which they excel, at which they develop skill, and at which they can see progress. A person who becomes proficient at something—whether woodworking, teaching, software development, nursing, or gardening—typically finds the activity more satisfying than activities at which they struggle [15].
Research on flow—a state of deep engagement and satisfaction—emphasizes that flow occurs when tasks are challenging enough to hold attention but not so challenging as to produce anxiety. People report high satisfaction and lose a sense of time when competence and challenge are aligned.
Interest and Passion: Humans also find satisfaction in activities they genuinely care about. A person might be competent at a job they find meaningless; they may perform it well but not find fulfillment in it. But a person who is competent at something they love—who finds inherent meaning in the activity itself—reports deeper satisfaction [16].
When competence and genuine interest align—when people are good at things they care about—fulfillment is most likely. Therefore, the conventional wisdom “do what you love” resonates, though it requires addition: one should do what one loves AND is good at. The combination produces sustained fulfillment [16].
The Role of Autonomy and Choice
Research on well-being and motivation consistently demonstrates that people find activities more satisfying when they feel they have chosen them freely, when they experience autonomy in how they conduct them [16].
An activity is less fulfilling if someone is forced into it, even if they are good at it and it creates valuable results, compared to doing the same activity by choice. A person forced to paint feels less fulfillment than a person who chose to paint, even if the quality of output is identical [16].
This has profound implications: fulfillment requires not merely the opportunity to do meaningful things, but the freedom to choose to do them. Political systems that coerce people into particular roles—that deny them freedom to pursue their own paths—undermine fulfillment even if they ensure survival [17].
Purpose and Meaning: Connecting Activity to Values and Impact
Beyond competence, interest, and autonomy, fulfillment also involves feeling that one’s activities matter, that they connect to one’s values, that they have impact [17].
People find satisfaction in activities they perceive as meaningful or valuable. This can operate in several ways:
Intrinsic Meaning: The activity itself is valued for its own sake. An artist finds meaning in creating beautiful things; a gardener finds meaning in nurturing growing things; a musician finds meaning in making music [17].
Impact on Others: The activity helps others or contributes to something larger than oneself. A teacher experiences fulfillment partly because teaching impacts students; a nurse experiences fulfillment from helping patients heal; a civil rights advocate experiences fulfillment from advancing justice [18].
Contribution to Values: The activity embodies one’s values. An environmental scientist might find fulfillment in protecting nature; a social worker in helping vulnerable people; an engineer in solving practical problems. The alignment between activity and values produces meaning [18].
When people feel that their work matters, that it contributes something valuable, they report higher satisfaction than when they feel their work is pointless or harmful, even if they are competent and interested [18].
Part III: Fulfillment is Diverse—Freedom to Choose Your Own Path
A crucial insight of this framework is that fulfillment is not singular. There is no one path to a fulfilling life, no single definition of success or achievement that applies to all [19].
Why Diversity of Fulfillment Is Essential
Different people have different capacities, interests, values, and circumstances. A framework for human flourishing must accommodate this diversity:
Different Talents: People have different natural abilities and inclinations. Some have gifts for mathematics, others for verbal expression, others for physical coordination, others for interpersonal connection. A just society creates space for diverse talents to develop [19].
Different Values: People prioritize different things. Some prioritize creative expression above all else; others prioritize family; others prioritize service; others prioritize knowledge; others prioritize security. A just society respects diverse value systems [19].
Different Circumstances: People face different circumstances—different economic situations, health conditions, family structures, cultural contexts. Fulfillment for a person with severe physical disabilities looks different from fulfillment for a person without disabilities, but fulfillment is achievable in both cases through different pathways [20].
Different Life Stages: Fulfillment may look different at different life stages. A young person just developing capacities may find fulfillment in learning and exploration. A mid-career person may find fulfillment in mastery and contribution. An older person may find fulfillment in legacy and wisdom-sharing [20].
Examples of Diverse Fulfillment
Consider several examples of fulfilling lives, each involving different paths:
The Scientist: A person who finds fulfillment in understanding how the world works, who devotes themselves to research, who experiences deep satisfaction in advancing knowledge. Their fulfillment involves intellectual capacity, autonomy in research direction, and the sense that they are contributing to human understanding [20].
The Craftsperson: A person who finds fulfillment in making beautiful or useful things—furniture, pottery, clothing, food. Their fulfillment involves physical skill, creative expression, and the satisfaction of creating something tangible [20].
The Parent and Community Member: A person who finds fulfillment primarily in family relationships, in raising children well, in contributing to their community. Their fulfillment involves relational capacity, service, and the sense that they are contributing to the well-being of those they love [21].
The Athlete or Performer: A person who finds fulfillment in physical excellence, in moving their body skillfully, in performing for others. Their fulfillment involves physical capacity, the achievement of excellence, and often the connection with audiences or teammates [21].
The Advocate or Activist: A person who finds fulfillment in working for causes they believe in—social justice, environmental protection, political reform. Their fulfillment involves the sense that they are contributing to something larger than themselves, that they are helping address wrongs [21].
The Caregiver: A person who finds fulfillment in attending to others’ needs—as a nurse, teacher, therapist, or family member. Their fulfillment involves relational capacity, the sense of helping others, and direct connection to human welfare [21].
Each of these people is pursuing fulfillment—achieving survival while engaging in activities that produce deep satisfaction and express their capacities. But their paths are diverse, and this diversity is not a problem to be solved; it is the natural and healthy expression of human variation [21].
The Implications: Freedom to Choose Your Own Fulfillment
If fulfillment is diverse and individual, then a just society must protect freedom for people to pursue their own versions of fulfillment. This means:
Freedom from Coercion: People should not be forced into particular roles or paths based on birth, family background, or others’ preferences. A society that assigns roles based on gender, caste, class, or ethnicity—constraining where people can work or what they can pursue—undermines fulfillment [22].
Access to Diverse Opportunities: People should have genuine access to diverse paths. A society that provides only certain paths—for example, forcing everyone toward academic careers while devaluing craftsmanship—limits fulfillment. People need access to options reflecting their varied capacities and interests [22].
Support for Exploration: Especially in younger years, people should have the opportunity to explore—to try different activities, learn about themselves, discover what engages them. This exploration is how people identify their genuine interests and capacities [22].
Protection of Dignity: Whatever path people choose toward fulfillment, it should be respected and valued. A society that stigmatizes certain legitimate pursuits—that elevates some forms of work while degrading others—undermines the respect that allows people to pursue diverse paths with confidence [22].
Part IV: The Role of Politics and Governance in Enabling Fulfillment
If people understand the purpose of life to be achieving survival and fulfillment, then they should evaluate political systems and governance based on whether these systems enable this dual achievement. This section addresses the proper role of politics in relation to these life purposes [23].
The Political Requirement: Create Conditions for Both Survival and Fulfillment
The first political requirement is ensuring universal survival. Government should ensure that all people can access basic resources, including nutrition, shelter, healthcare, and safety, and that they prevent systemic exploitation or deprivation. This remains the foundational requirement [23].
But governments oriented towards genuine human welfare should go further: they should create conditions enabling fulfillment. This means creating opportunity ecosystems—systems and environments in which people can identify their capacities and interests and can act on them [23].
Education: Identifying Capacities and Inclinations
A crucial role for government through educational systems is helping individuals discover and develop their capacities and understand their inclinations [24].
Many people grow up without a clear understanding of what they are good at or what genuinely interests them. They may pursue paths determined by family expectations, economic necessity, or cultural constraints rather than by genuine alignment with their capacities and interests. Education—properly designed—can help people identify these alignments [24].
Discovery Through Exposure: Education should expose people to diverse activities, disciplines, and possibilities. Someone might discover a gift for music through a school music program, a gift for building through a workshop, a gift for teaching through mentoring experiences. Exposure creates opportunities for discovery [24].
Development of Capacity: Once someone identifies an area of genuine interest and demonstrated capacity, education should support deep development. This means access to instruction, practice, and mentorship from those more skilled. The person who discovers a passion for biology should be able to pursue it deeply, accessing laboratories, instruction, and field experiences [25].
Self-Knowledge: Education should help people understand themselves—their strengths, their limitations, their values. This self-knowledge is foundational in identifying fulfilling paths [25].
Exploration Without Premature Foreclosure: Especially in younger years, educational systems should support exploration rather than forcing early commitment to particular paths. Someone who discovers a passion for engineering at age 20 should not have been forced into a different path at age 14 [25].
Education for fulfillment is not merely job training, though that may be part of it. It is education oriented toward helping people understand themselves and discover paths aligned with their capacities and genuine interests [25].
Economic and Opportunity Ecosystems: Enabling Acting on Your Calling
Even if people identify what they are good at and what they love, they cannot pursue fulfillment unless economic and opportunity structures allow it [26].
Economic Access: People must be able to support themselves by pursuing what they love. If the only well-paying jobs in a region require work someone finds meaningless, they face a tragic choice: pursue fulfillment and economic insecurity, or secure survival and forgo fulfillment [26].
This does not mean everyone will be wealthy, but it means that pursuing different paths to fulfillment should not require poverty or desperation. Someone who wants to be an artist should be able to support themselves through art (or through art combined with other work) without facing destitution. Someone who wants to be a teacher should be able to support themselves adequately through teaching [26].
Institutional Support: Many pursuits require institutional support. An aspiring scientist needs access to laboratories and research institutions. Instruments and concert halls are necessary for an aspiring musician. An aspiring entrepreneur needs access to capital and business infrastructure. Governments and communities should create these institutions and make them accessible [26].
Time and Space: Pursuing fulfillment requires time. A person working two jobs to survive has little time to develop capacities or pursue meaningful activities. A just society should structure work and economic life so that people have sufficient time for things beyond mere survival—time for learning, creating, connecting with others [27].
Removal of Barriers: Often, barriers to pursuing fulfilling paths are structural—discrimination, lack of access, family obligations, geographic isolation. Governments should work to remove these barriers. This might include childcare support (enabling parents to pursue work or learning), transportation support (enabling access to opportunities), anti-discrimination enforcement, and other policies removing obstacles [27].
Creating the Conditions: Policy Implications
What policies and governmental structures support the fulfillment of human potential?
Universal Basic Material Security: Ensuring everyone has access to nutrition, shelter, healthcare, and safety. People could achieve this through various policy mechanisms, but the goal is clear: everyone should be materially secure enough to pursue fulfillment without desperation [27].
Education Access and Quality: Ensuring all people have access to education that helps them identify and develop their capacities. This includes K-12 education, but also adult education, skill-training, and support for exploration at various life stages [27].
Economic Opportunity: Structuring economies so that pursuing different paths to fulfillment does not require poverty. This might involve policies supporting diverse business models, protecting workers’ rights to pursue different types of work, and ensuring reasonable compensation across different fields [28].
Time Sufficiency: Working toward structures in which people have time for non-survival pursuits—time to learn, create, connect, and pursue meaning. This might involve limiting work hours, providing parental leave, and supporting sabbaticals or periods of transition [28].
Diverse Pathways: Creating multiple legitimate and respected pathways to fulfillment—recognizing that not everyone should follow academic routes, that craftsmanship and service and creative pursuits are equally valid, that different temperaments suit different paths [28].
Protection of Dignity: Ensuring respect and value for any legitimate path people pursue. Combating stigma against certain forms of work, recognizing diverse forms of contribution, and protecting people’s freedom to pursue their own conception of fulfillment [28].
The Limits of Government: Individual Responsibility
While government can create enabling conditions, fulfillment ultimately requires individual commitment and action. Government cannot force fulfillment; it can only create conditions in which people can pursue it [29].
This means several things:
Personal Responsibility for Discovery: While education can support discovery, individuals must engage in self-exploration, must take responsibility for understanding what they care about and what they are good at [29].
Personal Commitment: Achieving fulfillment requires sustained effort and commitment. No government can provide this; only the individual can commit to developing their capacities and pursuing their calling [29].
Responsibility to Others: Individual pursuit of fulfillment must be balanced against responsibility to others. A person pursuing fulfillment must do so in ways that do not undermine others’ ability to pursue theirs, and ideally in ways that contribute to others’ welfare [29].
Resilience and Adaptation: Fulfillment often requires resilience—facing obstacles and persisting despite them. It may require adapting one’s path as circumstances change. Government can remove barriers, but cannot remove all challenges; individuals must develop resilience [30].
Part V: Integration—Political Systems Evaluated by Capacity to Enable Fulfillment
This framework provides a clear standard for evaluating political systems: How well do they enable people to both survive and pursue fulfillment?[30]
A Comprehensive Political Evaluation Framework
Using this standard, we can evaluate political systems comprehensively.
Survival Provision: Does the system ensure that all people have access to basic material nutrition, shelter, healthcare? Are people protected from exploitation? Do government policies work toward universal material security or only for privileged groups? [30]
Educational Access: Does the system provide quality education, helping people identify and develop their capacities? Do educational systems support the exploration of diverse interests? Or do they channel people narrowly based on background or ability? [31]
Economic Opportunity: Does the system create a genuine opportunity for people to pursue diverse paths to fulfillment? Or does it restrict opportunity to privileged groups? Can someone pursue an unconventional calling without facing destitution? [31]
Time Sufficiency: Do work and economic structures allow people adequate time for non-survival pursuits? Or do most people exhaust themselves in mere survival? [31]
Freedom and Autonomy: Does the system protect the freedom to pursue one’s own conception of fulfillment? Are there significant barriers based on identity, background, or others’ preferences? [31]
Dignity and Respect: Are different legitimate paths to fulfillment respected and valued? Or does the culture elevate some pursuits while degrading others, undermining respect for diverse paths? [31]
Examples: How Systems Fail or Succeed
A System That Fails at Survival Provision: A wealthy nation with homelessness, untreated illness, and children going hungry is failing at the foundational level. It may provide education and opportunity to some, but if survival is not universal, it is fundamentally unjust. This system fails the most basic political requirement [31].
A System That Provides Survival but Restricts Fulfillment: A system that ensures everyone is fed and housed but channels people into predetermined roles based on family background, gender, or caste provides survival but not fulfillment. People survive but cannot become who they are capable of becoming. This system is inadequate [32].
A System That Provides Survival and Opportunity but Degrades Some Paths: A system that provides material security and education but stigmatizes certain legitimate pursuits and undermines fulfillment for those whose genuine calling is in those areas. A culture that respects engineering but degrades childcare, or respects law but degrades art, constrains fulfillment for some [32].
A System That Genuinely Enables Both: A system that ensures universal material security, provides education helping people discover themselves, creates diverse economic opportunity, allows sufficient time for personal pursuits, protects freedom and autonomy, and respects diverse legitimate paths to fulfillment is approaching its proper purpose [32].
The Evolutionary and Ecological Context
This framework also fits within the societal evolution and ecological context discussed in earlier papers. Societies that enable both survival and fulfillment for their members tend to be more stable, more innovative, and more sustainable. Societies that restrict fulfillment to elites while denying it to majority populations tend toward instability and conflict [33].
Moreover, understanding fulfillment as aligned with individual interests and capacities helps solve one of the persistent problems of sustainable societies: how to motivate people to work on necessary but unglamorous tasks. If someone aligns their work with their strengths and interests, they perform their tasks effectively and sustainably. If they are coerced into work misaligned with their nature, they will perform poorly and become resentful [33].
A society oriented toward enabling fulfillment for all, not just elites, is more likely to be stable, innovative, and sustainable than one reserving fulfillment for the few [33].
Conclusion
The purpose of life, understood in material and psychological terms, consists of two related levels: survival and fulfillment. Survival—meeting biological and psychological needs sufficient to continue living—is universal. All humans share this purpose. Fulfillment—achieving survival while engaging in activities that produce deep satisfaction and express one’s capacities—is individual and diverse. Different people find fulfillment through different paths: creative expression, intellectual work, service, physical achievement, relational connection, and countless others [34].
A just and functioning political system should enable both. It should ensure that all people have access to survival—that none are deprived of basic material and psychological security. And it should create conditions enabling fulfillment: education helping people discover themselves, economic structures allowing diverse paths, sufficient time for personal pursuits, freedom to choose one’s own path, and respect for diverse legitimate pursuits [34].
This framework provides clarity about what matters. It suggests that political arguments about the proper role of government should focus on this central question: Are we creating conditions in which people can both survive and pursue fulfillment? Are we enabling or obstructing human flourishing? [34]
This framework for education suggests that schools and educational systems should help people understand themselves, discover their capacities, and identify paths aligned with their genuine interests, instead of just job training or academic achievement. Education is properly a service toward enabling fulfillment [35].
For individuals, this framework provides permission and encouragement: circumstances, tradition, or others’ expectations do not predetermine your life’s purpose. Your purpose is to survive and then to pursue what you are good at and what you genuinely care about. This is a worthy and achievable purpose, available to everyone, respecting the diversity of human nature [35].
For society, this framework suggests that we should evaluate our systems and policies not by narrow metrics of national power, ideological purity, or elite wealth, but by the fundamental question: Are we enabling all our members to both survive and pursue fulfillment? Are we creating a society in which people can become who they are capable of becoming? [35]
In this framework, the purpose of life is neither grandiose nor minimalist. It is neither about transcendent achievement nor about mere existence. It is about the achievement of living, meeting needs and simultaneously expressing one’s nature, developing one’s capacities, pursuing what one loves [35].
This is a purpose available to all, respecting human diversity, grounded in observable fact about what produces well-being and meaning. And this standard clearly evaluates political systems: Do political systems enable people to survive and be fulfilled? That is the central political question, and it is also the most basic human question [35].
References
[1] Sutin, A. R., Luchetti, M., Stephan, Y., Terracciano, A., Kern, M. L., & Steptoe, A. (2021). Sense of purpose in life and subsequent physical, behavioral, and psychological health: A prospective study in a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 55(10), 1084–1093. https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kaab033
[2] Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (Rev. ed.). Harvard University Press.
[3] Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge University Press.
[4] Kim, E. S., Sun, J. K., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2013). Purpose in life and reduced stroke risk: The health and retirement study. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 74(5), 427–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2013.03.033
[5] Steger, M. F., Kashdan, T. B., & Oishi, S. (2008). Being good by doing good: Daily eudaimonic activity and well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(3), 628–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.09.003
[6] Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. Harper & Brothers.
[7] Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (1996). Psychological well-being: Meaning, measure, and implications for psychotherapy research. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 65(1), 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1159/000289026
[8] Frankl, V. E. (1946). Man’s search for meaning. Beacon Press.
[9] Sen, A. K. (2009). The idea of justice. Harvard University Press.
[10] Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
[11] Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row.
[12] Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press.
[13] Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Free Press.
[14] Hill, P. L., & Turiano, N. A. (2014). Purpose in life as a predictor of mortality across adulthood. Psychological Science, 25(7), 1482–1486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614531799
[15] Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268
[16] Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Riverhead Books.
[17] Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
[18] Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 393–417. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24351328
[19] Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books.
[20] Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
[21] Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292.
[22] Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.
[23] Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Crown Business.
[24] Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. Macmillan.
[25] Bloom, B. S. (1985). Developing talent in young people. Ballantine Books.
[26] Pickett, K. E., & Wilkinson, R. G. (2015). Income inequality and health: A causal review. Social Science & Medicine, 128, 316–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.12.031
[27] Stiglitz, J. E. (2010). Freefall: America, free markets, and the sinking of the world economy. W.W. Norton & Company.
[28] Piketty, T. (2013). Capital in the twenty-first century. Harvard University Press.
[29] Peterson, C. (2000). The future of optimism. American Psychologist, 55(1), 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.44
[30] Frankfort-Nachmias, C., & Nachmias, D. (2008). Research methods in the social sciences (7th ed.). Worth Publishers.
[31] United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Retrieved from https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
[32] UNESCO. (2023). Global monitoring report on education for sustainable development. Retrieved from https://www.unesco.org/gem-report
[33] Diamond, J. (2005). Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed. Viking.
[34] Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Harvard University Press.
[35] Westgate, E. C., Markman, K. D., & Messner, C. (2024). Psychological richness and well-being. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 33(2), 136–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214241249732