HAPPINESS AND THE GOOD LIFE

The question I raise is whether happiness constitutes a good life. I argue that it does not and contend that the good life is based on three essentials: worthwhile activities, worthwhile character, and worthwhile relationships. I provide examples of possibly happy lives that are not good and good lives that are not happy.

Getting Personal — The Intuition of Neutrality Re-interpreted

According to the Intuition of Neutrality, there is a range of wellbeing levels such that adding people with lives at these levels doesn’t make the world either better or worse. As lives in the neutral range can be good for those who live them, this intuition is in conflict with one of the main tenets of welfarism; it creates a disparity between what is good for a person and what is impersonally good. Adding a person with a good life needn’t make the world better. In “Broome and the Intuition of Neutrality” (2009) I suggested, but did not elaborate, a re-interpretation of the neutral range that would remove the problematic disparity. On this re-interpretation, a life at a level within the neutral range is not merely impersonally neutral; it is also neutral in its personal value: neither better nor worse for its owner than non-existence. Nevertheless, among such personally neutral lives, some might still be personally better or worse than others, provided that they are incommensurable in their personal value with non-existence. In this paper, I explore some of the implications of this ‘personalization’ of the Intuition of neutrality. In particular, I discuss its worrisome implications for neutral-range utilitarianism (NRU). While NRU was originally proposed as a way to avoid the Repugnant Conclusion, it turns out this conclusion is re-instated on the new interpretation and, contrary to what was suggested in my 2009-paper, it remains repugnant. A related point is that it no longer holds that all personally good lives must be better for a person than personally neutral lives. Nor that all personally bad lives must be worse than personally neutral lives. While this might seem strange, it should be accepted. As for the worrisome implications of NRU, these implications do not undermine the personalized Neutrality Intuition itself. The latter might well be retained even if NRU is given up.

A Qualitative Study on Young Women’s Lives Prior to and Four Years after Youth Detention: Examining the Good Lives Model’s Aetiological Assumptions

Detained female adolescents constitute a vulnerable, challenging, and understudied minority. Interventions for DFA are still dominated by risk management approaches with less focus on strength-based approaches such as the Good Lives Model (GLM). This study explored the functionality of DFA’s behaviour prior to and four years after release from detention, using the GLM as the guiding theoretical framework. A theory-driven thematic analysis was conducted of 30 in-depth interviews with former DFA (Mage = 20.80), exploring the fulfilment of their basic human needs (e.g., relatedness, independence) before and after detention. Before detention, the young women experienced multiple problems trying to fulfil multiple human needs, often contributing to poor balance in their lives and their antisocial behaviour. Although external and internal obstacles to fulfilling human needs were still present at follow-up, important improvements were noted, e.g., in the scope of their human needs and the resources available to fulfil their needs. The findings provide additional insights into the issues experienced by young women in detention and indicate there are opportunities to assist these young women, through the development of appropriate resources and capacities which provide them with appropriate means for fulfilling their needs and moving towards a personally meaningful and prosocial life.

Does the good lives model work? A systematic review of the recidivism evidence

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the efficacy of good lives model (GLM) interventions on the recidivism outcomes of convicted offenders. Design/methodology/approach The review adhered to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis and Cochrane guidelines. Digital databases were searched and articles reporting outcomes of the GLM amongst convicted offenders and outcomes including recidivism data and pre-post measures of dynamic risk were included in a narrative synthesis. Findings Of 1,791 articles screened, only six studies met the criteria for review. Key findings were: in half the reviewed studies, GLM did not increase recidivism risk; in half the reviewed studies, only when the correct treatment dosage was applied that some evidence of risk reduction was found; there was limited support for GLM increasing or sustaining motivation for resistance from reoffending. Research for the review was limited and support for the GLM in reducing recidivism rates was not established. Practical implications In this 2021 review, the authors examined the efficacy of the GLM in reducing recidivism. This addresses a gap in the literature. The authors found that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that the GLM can reduce recidivism. This has implications for practitioners who wish to deliver evidence-based practices in prison/community settings. There is currently not enough peer-reviewed evidence to unequivocally confirm the efficacy of the GLM. The authors recommended additional quality programme outcome research be carried out. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to assess quantitative and qualitative studies on the efficacy of the GLM and provides foundations for future research.

Good Lives Model: Importance of Interagency Collaboration in Preventing Violent Recidivism

Violence is a complex and multifaceted problem requiring a holistic and individualized response. The Good Lives Model (GLM) suggests violence occurs when an individual experiences internal and external obstacles in the pursuit of universal human needs (termed primary goods). With a twin focus, GLM-consistent interventions aim to promote attainment of primary goods, whilst simultaneously reducing risk of reoffending. This is achieved by improving an individuals’ internal (i.e., skills and abilities) and external capacities (i.e., opportunities, environments, and resources). This paper proposes that collaborations between different agencies (e.g., psychological services, criminal justice systems, social services, education, community organizations, and healthcare) can support the attainment of primary goods through the provision of specialized skills and resources. Recommendations for ensuring interagency collaborations are effective are outlined, including embedding a project lead, regular interagency meetings and training, establishing information sharing procedures, and defining the role each agency plays in client care.

Drama education as part of a good lives model treatment approach

Purpose Forensic psychiatric treatment is aimed at reducing violence risk factors (Bonta and Andrews, 2017) and achieving positive, prosocial life goals (Willis et al., 2013). Drama education can be provided as part of this treatment, but the evidence base is scarce. Therefore, the present study aims to provide insight into experiences with drama education as part of forensic psychiatric treatment. Design/methodology/approach A qualitative study was conducted, based on participant observation and 16 interviews, to explore the experiences of patients and treatment providers with drama education during forensic psychiatric treatment. Analyses were conducted following the consensual qualitative research method (Hill et al., 1997). Findings The five central themes that emerged from the analysis were knowledge, happiness, excellence in play, community and staff-patient hierarchy. Participants reported that they enjoyed the drama lessons, appreciated the group atmosphere and were able to practice their social-emotional skills. Furthermore, patients and their treatment providers became better acquainted with each other because the power differences between patients and staff decreased during the drama lessons. Practical implications Drama education can be considered a useful part of clinical forensic psychiatric treatment, given the positive experience of participants and its perceived positive impact on treatment. Originality/value This was one of the first studies to examine the influence that drama education may have on forensic psychiatric treatment. Four of the five themes were in line with the good lives model (Willis et al., 2013), indicating that drama education fulfiled basic human needs or “primary goods” that are important to address in forensic psychiatric treatment, as it decreases the need to compensate these goods with criminal behaviour.

Good Lives Model: Importance of Interagency Collaboration in Preventing Violent Recidivism

Violence is a complex and multifaceted problem requiring a holistic and individualized response. The Good Lives Model (GLM) suggests violence occurs when an individual experiences internal and external obstacles in the pursuit of universal human needs (termed primary goods). With a twin focus, GLM-consistent interventions aim to promote attainment of primary goods, whilst simultaneously reducing risk of reoffending. This is achieved by improving an individuals’ internal (i.e., skills and abilities) and external capacities (i.e., opportunities, environments, and resources). This paper proposes that collaborations between different agencies (e.g., psychological services, criminal justice systems, social services, education, community organizations and healthcare) can support the attainment of primary goods through the provision of specialized skills and resources. Recommendations for ensuring interagency collaborations are effective are outlined, including embedding a project lead, regular interagency meetings and training, establishing information sharing procedures, and defining the role each agency plays in client care.