A person's well-being is what is good for that person.[13]​ Theories of well-being try to determine what characteristics of a state are responsible for this state contributing to the person's well-being. Theories of well-being are usually classified into experiential theories, desire theories and objective list theories.[2]​[14]​[9]​ Hedonistic theories and desire theories are subjective theories. According to them, the degree of well-being of a person depends on the subjective mental states and attitudes of this person. Objective list theories, on the other hand, allow that things can benefit a person independently of that person's subjective attitudes toward these things. All of these are measured in terms of the ethical theory of value that summarizes well-being as positive or negative.

For experientialist theories, the mental states in question are experiences of pleasure and pain. The most common experiential theory is hedonism.[15] An example of such an account is found in the works of Jeremy Bentham, where it is suggested that the value of experiences only depends on their duration and the intensity of the pleasure or pain present in them. There are several theories of this nature:

[16] Several counterexamples have been formulated against this point of view. They generally involve cases in which common sense proposes that options with less added pleasure are preferable, for example, that intellectual or aesthetic pleasures are superior to sensory ones[17] or that it would be unwise to enter Robert Nozick's experience machine. These counterexamples are not irrefutable arguments, but the defender of experientialist theories faces the challenge of explaining why common sense deceives us in problematic cases.

Desire theories can avoid some of the problems of hedonistic theories by maintaining that well-being consists of the satisfaction of desires: the greater the number of satisfied desires, the greater the well-being.

A problem for some versions of desire theory is that not all desires are good: some desires may even have dire consequences for the agent. Desire theorists have tried to avoid this objection by maintaining that what matters is not actual desires, but rather the desires the agent would have if he were fully informed.[2]​.

Objective list theories claim that a person's well-being depends on a variety of basic objective goods for herself. These goods can also include subjective factors such as the excess of pleasure over pain or the satisfaction of desires, in addition to factors that are independent of the subject's attitudes, such as friendship or having virtues. Not developing these facets that depend on the nature of each individual would be negative and specifically, it would be negative to develop other facets considered contrary (for example, if health is positive, lack of health is negative).[14]​ Objective list theories face the problem of explaining how factors independent of the subject can determine the well-being of a person, even if this person does not care about these factors.[2]​[9]​ Another objection refers to the selection of these factors. Different theorists have provided very different combinations of basic objective goods. These groupings appear to constitute arbitrary selections, unless clear criteria can be provided as to why all and only the elements within their selections are relevant factors.

Different types of well-being are often distinguished such as physical well-being, mental well-being, emotional well-being and social well-being.[19]​.

The general notion of discomfort is often presented as the opposite of well-being.[31]​.

In 1998, personal development went from being a secondary topic of psychology to a central position, when Martin Seligman was elected president of the American Psychological Association (APA), then proposing a new point of view, positive psychology, thus focusing attention on healthy individuals much more than on pathologies.[32]​.

Regarding research in psychology in relation to personal development, Albert Bandura (born in 1925) carried out various studies trying to understand how certain human forces, more than others, help to strengthen personal development,[33][34]​ and in this regard he showed that confidence in one's own success is one of the factors that best explains why individuals who have the same level of knowledge and skills can have very different results. According to Bandura, self-confidence is a powerful index of success, since:.

The psychiatrist Jean Cottraux"),[35][36]​ in his book La force avec soi: pour une psychologie positive (2007),[37]​ exposed «a method of personal change» that is based on the «"search for one's own strengths of character"».

Following the emergence of positive psychology, psychology researchers increasingly focused on the study of happiness and well-being, as a quantitatively measurable construct. According to psychologist Martin Seligman, well-being has five contributing elements:.

Well-being is not subjective or exclusively affective, well-being is a combination of feeling good and really having meaning in life, good relationships and achievements. The way to choose the direction of our life is to maximize the five elements in their entirety.[23]​.

The study of well-being has expanded dramatically in recent years, although the World Health Organization in 1948 defined Health as a state of physical, psychological and social well-being, and not just the absence of disease,[38]​ it was not until recently that psychology became interested in the study of well-being as a state of mind.

Welfareism (welfarism) is a theory of value based on well-being. It states that well-being is the only thing that has intrinsic value, that is, that it is good in itself and not only good as a means to something else.[39]​[40]​[41]​ From this point of view, the value of a situation or whether one alternative is better than another depends only on the degrees of well-being of each affected entity. All other factors are relevant to value only to the extent that they have an impact on someone's well-being.[39]​[40]​ The well-being in question is generally not limited to human well-being, but also includes animal well-being.[41]​.

Different versions of welfarism offer different interpretations of the exact relationship between well-being and value. Pure welfarists propose the simplest approach by arguing that only global well-being matters, for example, as the sum total of everyone's well-being. This position has been criticized in several ways.[39]​[42]​ On the one hand, it has been argued that some forms of well-being, such as sensory pleasures, are less valuable than other forms of well-being, such as intellectual pleasures.[43]​[44]​[45]​ On the other hand, certain intuitions indicate that what matters is not just the sum total, but also how individual degrees of well-being are distributed. There is a tendency to prefer equal distributions where everyone has approximately the same degree rather than unequal distributions where there is a large division between happy and unhappy people, even if the overall well-being is the same.[39]​[42]​[46]​ Another intuition regarding distribution is that people who deserve well-being, such as the morally upright, should enjoy higher degrees of well-being than those who do not deserve it.[39]​[42]​.

These criticisms are addressed in another version of welfarism: impure welfarism. Impure welfarists agree with pure welfarists that the only thing that matters is well-being. But they allow other aspects of well-being, besides its overall degree, to have an impact on value, for example how well-being is distributed.[39]​[42]​ Pure welfarists sometimes argue against this approach, as it seems to move away from the basic tenet of welfarism: that only well-being is intrinsically valuable. But the distribution of well-being is a relationship between entities and, therefore, is not intrinsic to any of them.[42]​.

Some objections based on counterexamples are directed against all forms of welfarism. They tend to focus on the idea that there are things other than well-being that have intrinsic value. Some putative examples include the value of beauty, virtue, or justice.[47][48][49][50] Such arguments are often rejected by welfarists who maintain that the things cited would not be valuable if they were unrelated to well-being. This often extends to a positive argument for welfarism based on the claim that nothing would be good or bad in a world without sentient beings.[39]​[46]​ In this sense, welfarists may agree that the examples cited are valuable in some way, but reject the idea that they are intrinsically valuable.[46]​.

Some authors consider that welfarism includes the ethical thesis that morality depends fundamentally on well-being.[42]​[41]​ From this point of view, welfarism is also committed to the consequentialist claim that actions, policies, or rules should be evaluated based on how their consequences affect the well-being of everyone.[51]​.

Well-being is a multidimensional state that integrates physical, mental, emotional and social aspects, and is related to the degree of satisfaction and balance that a person experiences in their daily life. In addition to factors such as physical activity, diet, social relationships and stress management, certain leisure and rest experiences can also influence the perception of well-being.

In this context, the Global Wellness Institute—an international organization dedicated to well-being research—points out that some practices and activities, including those associated with wellness tourism, can contribute to personal well-being by promoting self-care, relaxation and healthy lifestyles. [52]​.

A person's well-being is what is good for that person.[13]​ Theories of well-being try to determine what characteristics of a state are responsible for this state contributing to the person's well-being. Theories of well-being are usually classified into experiential theories, desire theories and objective list theories.[2]​[14]​[9]​ Hedonistic theories and desire theories are subjective theories. According to them, the degree of well-being of a person depends on the subjective mental states and attitudes of this person. Objective list theories, on the other hand, allow that things can benefit a person independently of that person's subjective attitudes toward these things. All of these are measured in terms of the ethical theory of value that summarizes well-being as positive or negative.

For experientialist theories, the mental states in question are experiences of pleasure and pain. The most common experiential theory is hedonism.[15] An example of such an account is found in the works of Jeremy Bentham, where it is suggested that the value of experiences only depends on their duration and the intensity of the pleasure or pain present in them. There are several theories of this nature:

[16] Several counterexamples have been formulated against this point of view. They generally involve cases in which common sense proposes that options with less added pleasure are preferable, for example, that intellectual or aesthetic pleasures are superior to sensory ones[17] or that it would be unwise to enter Robert Nozick's experience machine. These counterexamples are not irrefutable arguments, but the defender of experientialist theories faces the challenge of explaining why common sense deceives us in problematic cases.

Desire theories can avoid some of the problems of hedonistic theories by maintaining that well-being consists of the satisfaction of desires: the greater the number of satisfied desires, the greater the well-being.

A problem for some versions of desire theory is that not all desires are good: some desires may even have dire consequences for the agent. Desire theorists have tried to avoid this objection by maintaining that what matters is not actual desires, but rather the desires the agent would have if he were fully informed.[2]​.

Objective list theories claim that a person's well-being depends on a variety of basic objective goods for herself. These goods can also include subjective factors such as the excess of pleasure over pain or the satisfaction of desires, in addition to factors that are independent of the subject's attitudes, such as friendship or having virtues. Not developing these facets that depend on the nature of each individual would be negative and specifically, it would be negative to develop other facets considered contrary (for example, if health is positive, lack of health is negative).[14]​ Objective list theories face the problem of explaining how factors independent of the subject can determine the well-being of a person, even if this person does not care about these factors.[2]​[9]​ Another objection refers to the selection of these factors. Different theorists have provided very different combinations of basic objective goods. These groupings appear to constitute arbitrary selections, unless clear criteria can be provided as to why all and only the elements within their selections are relevant factors.

Different types of well-being are often distinguished such as physical well-being, mental well-being, emotional well-being and social well-being.[19]​.

The general notion of discomfort is often presented as the opposite of well-being.[31]​.

In 1998, personal development went from being a secondary topic of psychology to a central position, when Martin Seligman was elected president of the American Psychological Association (APA), then proposing a new point of view, positive psychology, thus focusing attention on healthy individuals much more than on pathologies.[32]​.

Regarding research in psychology in relation to personal development, Albert Bandura (born in 1925) carried out various studies trying to understand how certain human forces, more than others, help to strengthen personal development,[33][34]​ and in this regard he showed that confidence in one's own success is one of the factors that best explains why individuals who have the same level of knowledge and skills can have very different results. According to Bandura, self-confidence is a powerful index of success, since:.

The psychiatrist Jean Cottraux"),[35][36]​ in his book La force avec soi: pour une psychologie positive (2007),[37]​ exposed «a method of personal change» that is based on the «"search for one's own strengths of character"».

Following the emergence of positive psychology, psychology researchers increasingly focused on the study of happiness and well-being, as a quantitatively measurable construct. According to psychologist Martin Seligman, well-being has five contributing elements:.

Well-being is not subjective or exclusively affective, well-being is a combination of feeling good and really having meaning in life, good relationships and achievements. The way to choose the direction of our life is to maximize the five elements in their entirety.[23]​.

The study of well-being has expanded dramatically in recent years, although the World Health Organization in 1948 defined Health as a state of physical, psychological and social well-being, and not just the absence of disease,[38]​ it was not until recently that psychology became interested in the study of well-being as a state of mind.

Welfareism (welfarism) is a theory of value based on well-being. It states that well-being is the only thing that has intrinsic value, that is, that it is good in itself and not only good as a means to something else.[39]​[40]​[41]​ From this point of view, the value of a situation or whether one alternative is better than another depends only on the degrees of well-being of each affected entity. All other factors are relevant to value only to the extent that they have an impact on someone's well-being.[39]​[40]​ The well-being in question is generally not limited to human well-being, but also includes animal well-being.[41]​.

Different versions of welfarism offer different interpretations of the exact relationship between well-being and value. Pure welfarists propose the simplest approach by arguing that only global well-being matters, for example, as the sum total of everyone's well-being. This position has been criticized in several ways.[39]​[42]​ On the one hand, it has been argued that some forms of well-being, such as sensory pleasures, are less valuable than other forms of well-being, such as intellectual pleasures.[43]​[44]​[45]​ On the other hand, certain intuitions indicate that what matters is not just the sum total, but also how individual degrees of well-being are distributed. There is a tendency to prefer equal distributions where everyone has approximately the same degree rather than unequal distributions where there is a large division between happy and unhappy people, even if the overall well-being is the same.[39]​[42]​[46]​ Another intuition regarding distribution is that people who deserve well-being, such as the morally upright, should enjoy higher degrees of well-being than those who do not deserve it.[39]​[42]​.

These criticisms are addressed in another version of welfarism: impure welfarism. Impure welfarists agree with pure welfarists that the only thing that matters is well-being. But they allow other aspects of well-being, besides its overall degree, to have an impact on value, for example how well-being is distributed.[39]​[42]​ Pure welfarists sometimes argue against this approach, as it seems to move away from the basic tenet of welfarism: that only well-being is intrinsically valuable. But the distribution of well-being is a relationship between entities and, therefore, is not intrinsic to any of them.[42]​.

Some objections based on counterexamples are directed against all forms of welfarism. They tend to focus on the idea that there are things other than well-being that have intrinsic value. Some putative examples include the value of beauty, virtue, or justice.[47][48][49][50] Such arguments are often rejected by welfarists who maintain that the things cited would not be valuable if they were unrelated to well-being. This often extends to a positive argument for welfarism based on the claim that nothing would be good or bad in a world without sentient beings.[39]​[46]​ In this sense, welfarists may agree that the examples cited are valuable in some way, but reject the idea that they are intrinsically valuable.[46]​.

Some authors consider that welfarism includes the ethical thesis that morality depends fundamentally on well-being.[42]​[41]​ From this point of view, welfarism is also committed to the consequentialist claim that actions, policies, or rules should be evaluated based on how their consequences affect the well-being of everyone.[51]​.

Well-being is a multidimensional state that integrates physical, mental, emotional and social aspects, and is related to the degree of satisfaction and balance that a person experiences in their daily life. In addition to factors such as physical activity, diet, social relationships and stress management, certain leisure and rest experiences can also influence the perception of well-being.

In this context, the Global Wellness Institute—an international organization dedicated to well-being research—points out that some practices and activities, including those associated with wellness tourism, can contribute to personal well-being by promoting self-care, relaxation and healthy lifestyles. [52]​.