What is health? Nutritious food and exercise quickly come to
mind. Being healthy makes us think of doing
something. We have a healthy diet, lead a healthy lifestyle, have healthy
relationships. “Healthy”, the adjective, is easily understood as a good way of
doing something. It’s more difficult to define “health”, the noun. Presumably
doing healthy things brings us health. Why else would we do healthy things? The
reasons, and hence the “health” being sought, differ from person to person.
Enter “well-being” and the subjectivity amplifies. The two are intimately
linked. Perhaps not in the way we’ve been sold.
Let’s start with a definition. I know, I am breaking 10th grade English dogma – don’t start your introduction with a definition! My purpose is to show you how a widely accepted definition is not only wrong but is not actionable. The World Health Organization definition of “health”:
“Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social
well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”
I appreciate the inclusion of “physical, mental and social”
as necessary components of health. The utility of this definition ends there for
me. Starting with the second clause the WHO suggests that the presence of “disease
or infirmity” (read: disability) negates the achievement of a state of health. Can
one not have health while living with chronic disease or disability? Rhetoric
aside, I don’t think I need to expand further.
Back to the first clause, “Health is a state of complete […]
well-being”. I’ve removed the part I like to reveal the absolute nature of this
statement. If you broadly apply the WHO’s definition of health, you would be
hard pressed to find any human being who meets the criteria of clause one
alone. Let’s give the WHO the benefit of the doubt – their definition is
aspirational. It’s meant to inspire nations and their policy-makers to reach
the highest possible heights of health, equity, and productivity. I’m skewering
their definition to make the point that health, to the individual, must be cast
in a different light. What of well-being?
In the philosophical sense, well-being is how well your life is going for you. There is debate about how to quantify this. One has to know the constituents of well-being and how to determine what makes them good for the individual. There are three leading theories, Hedonism (balance of pleasure over pain), Desire-satisfaction (fulfillment of desires), and Objective list (constituents of well-being outside of pleasure and desires). I will not dive into these here, suffice it to say that each has its limitations. Given the theoretical equipoise, I feel I have license to propose my own definition, albeit leaning in the direction of Objective list theory. Let’s first address the relationship between health and well-being.
According to the WHO, health cannot be achieved until you
have well-being. For those policy-makers trying to bring health to their people,
the problem of defining well-being becomes eminently vexing. If defining health
is the Mona Lisa, defining well-being is the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. My main
contention, however, is against the assertion that health is secondary to
well-being. I argue that the opposite is true.
Argument from First
Principles
You are a biological being. You have physiologic systems
that require inputs and produce outputs. An ideal state of health, then, could
be considered providing the precise quantity and rate of inputs your systems
need to perform effectively and efficiently. Nothing more, nothing less. Inputs
may include nutrition, sleep, physical activity, mental stimulation, and so on.
Now imagine a scenario where someone has completely
engineered your life for you. They have designed a way to provide all inputs,
tailored to your biological and genetic profile – proper food, eight hours of
sleep per night, physical training, exemplary education, even socialization. Everything
is controlled. Even though you could be in perfect physical and mental health,
you would not be surprised to find yourself completely miserable.
How can this be so? Because whatever we do to be healthy is
ultimately being done to prepare us
for something else. That something else is conscious experience. I do not wish
to invoke any arguments about dualism here. Regardless of how you think about
the nature of consciousness, its existence is undeniable.
Consciousness presents the world to us. It is within
consciousness that we do or do not achieve well-being. An ideal state of health
gives us our best chance to achieve well-being but does not guarantee it. Well-being
is achieved when our consciousness perceives that our internal and external
states are aligned and complimentary. If I am in pain and I do not think I should
be in pain, I am suffering, and my well-being is under attack. If I have a set
of beliefs but others are forcing theirs upon me, there is conflict, and my
well-being is under attack. If I love the natural world and have time to go for
long hikes (and the physical health to do so), I feel fulfilled, and my
well-being is sustained.
Argument from Evolution
From an evolutionary standpoint the healthiest, strongest, fittest
people had an advantage. This includes mental health and intelligence, requirements
to succeed in a group. In a hunter-gatherer tribe, most waking hours would be
spent on activities to promote survival. Good health would allow individuals to
contribute more and pass on their genes. Well-being doesn’t emerge as something
with which one has to be concerned until you can do something more than simply
survive.
Well-being requires time, with which one can turn their attention
to or think about whatever they choose. It requires time to experience a sense
that what you’re doing is worthwhile.
Well-being became possible once we had larger societies with
economies and adequate resources. Once you can purchase or trade for what you
otherwise would have spent your time acquiring, you have time to learn, travel,
care, volunteer, socialize, play, and more. These are things with which we
associate meaning or purpose. Plato and Aristotle were able to think
extensively about well-being, virtue, and the like, because they lived in a
society that valued knowledge and was able to support a number of citizens who
did not contribute to the production of physical resources.
One could point out that we would not be able to conceptualize
or experience well-being were we not adapted for it. While true, this does not
negate my argument. Before modernity the major selective pressures would have primarily
favoured characteristics that promoted survival. In keeping with the story of
evolution, it is generally only known what characteristics conferred an
advantage in hindsight. The emergence of consciousness and ability to reason are
clear evolutionary advantages, allowing ancient peoples to develop language and
band together in complex societies. These events needed to occur prior to the
ability to articulate and reflect on what is now being considered as
well-being. Hence, I contend that the notion of well-being is an interesting development
that came along for the ride while humans evolved to become the primary dominant
species that we now are.
Conclusion and New
Definitions
To bring this full circle, two questions help underscore the
fact that health precedes well-being and not the converse:
Can you have good health without well-being? Yes, without a
doubt.
Can you have well-being without good health? Unlikely.
Notice I haven’t answered ‘No’ to question two. Health is an important (likely the most important), but not sole component leading to well-being. If you are a Buddhist Dzogchen master and have become enlightened, unencumbered by a sense of self, you could have well-being without good health, because there is no self that requires it. You would still require some degree of health, though, to hold the body upright and have clarity of mind enough to meditate.
Also note that within my questions ‘good health’ does not
ascribe to the WHO’s “absence of disease or infirmity”. Health is a product of
the individual within whom is resides. With that said, here are my suggested new
definitions for health and well-being:
Health: A state of optimal physical, mental and social functioning
that gives one the best opportunity to live well.
Well-being: A
state of consciousness in which one’s internal and external experiences are
aligned to create feelings of happiness, fulfillment, meaning and/or
satisfaction, over the course of one’s lifetime.
Within the definition of health, I have used the word “optimal”.
This allows anyone to optimize their physical, mental and social functions to
fit their current state, be it free of disease and disability, or not. The
definition also tells us that health is a foundational state. If we have
health, we are on solid ground. Health is the jumping-off point for us to live
our best lives.
Well-being is less tangible. While not the only route,
health is the major conduit to well-being. As the definition states, your
internal and external states must align. This means that your physical, mental
and social functioning, as well as your environment, occupation, goal structure,
expectations, and more, must converge to create the feeling of fulfillment. By
its nature, well-being is transient, but can be kept closer at hand with
deliberate attention.
As a final thought, I have designed the definitions to be
actionable. Getting to an optimized state, modifying, and optimizing some more,
is achievable. Getting to “complete […] well-being” is not. Reflecting on your
internal and external experiences to assess their alignment can also be done.
Keep these definitions close at hand as we continue to explore ways to empower your
pursuit of health & well-being.