THE Categories of Well-Being is a universal hierarchy of intrinsic life values.[1] While each value is higher[2] than the previous, this does not indicate or suggest that the lower intrinsic values are subservient to the higher, that the higher values negate the lower, or that there is a conflict between the higher and lower. This is because the categories are distinctions of General Well-Being, toward which man necessarily acts as implied in the Natural Law of Human Action.
There are many ways in which praxeological rights support each of the following Categories of Well-Being, and there is a significant degree of interrelation and interdependence between the ends and how rights support their pursuit. The critical teleological point of the Categories of Well-Being is that there is a harmony of intrinsic life values when adequately conceived of and implemented. Any conception of a particular end which contradicts the others or results in disharmony or a lack of integration and indicates a misconception of that end: The true purpose of conscious life is the temporal harmony of the intrinsic values of the Categories of Well-Being, referred to as General Well-Being as implied in the Natural Law of Human Action.
It is critical to understand that while teleology involves the concept of well-being, this does not imply that well-being is quantifiable. The Categories of Well-Being are the intrinsic life values for the well-being of conscious organisms, which is the ontologically subjective aspect of the regulation of homeostasis and, therefore, axiomatic.[3]
It is a significant challenge for well-being research that well-being is not quantifiable which poses an insurmountable hurdle for any research attempting to establish strong epistemic objectivity in all areas as found in the physical sciences to provide a substantive conception of well-being. However, this teleological foundation does introduce weak epistemic objectivity for most areas while permitting leeway for individual epistemically subjective valuation of preference, although the degree of epistemic objectivity varies depending on the method of analysis used for a particular concern or intermediate end. For instance, in praxeological economics, there can be absolute epistemic objectivity in economic judgments of the suitability of a means to an end due to the absolute epistemic objectivity of praxeological economic theory.
An example of how teleology can introduce epistemically objective normativity is that the definition of a knife is a functional concept and results in weak epistemic objectivity as to what constitutes a good knife. There is, however, room for the epistemic subjectivity of individual valuation regarding its serviceability. This weak epistemic objectivity does permit empirical investigation, and the field of positive psychology[4] is making inroads in this respect.
However, such content is not the subject matter relevant here, but it is important to keep in mind that the introduction of the Categories of Well-Being and their temporal aspects introduces the notion of functional concepts, and all functional concepts are necessarily Intentionality-dependent and thereby normative (Searle, 2010: 59). The functional concepts introduced by the Categories of Well-Being include what is good, what is right, and what is just.
Functional concepts are a critical step in establishing a degree of epistemic objectivity regarding normativity since, as with all human action, the subject matter is ontologically subjective which permits the bridging of the is-ought distinction through human action.[5] To reiterate, since the acceptance of a value is the acceptance of a motivation (Searle, 2001: 29) and the teleology of the Categories of Well-Being are implied in the category of action, an absolute epistemically objective grounding for normative statements is provided.
Material Well-Being
Material Well-Being primarily involves the allocation of scarce resources utilized for the maintenance of well-being. The predominant constituent of Material Well-Being is praxeological economic theory: With respect to society, an economic system which supports prosperity is essential to the Material Well-Being of individuals, and this is best provided by an unhampered free-market economy facilitated—or regulated, so to speak—by a strict legal framework of individual praxeological rights. Material Well-Being supports all other ends since poverty and economic distress are generally harmful to the other Categories of Well-Being.[6] Strict private property rights, in particular, as well as strict laws protecting all other rights, are essential to this intrinsic value.
It is critical to realize that attention to Material Well-Being does not preclude attention to the three other categories, but harm does result from an exclusive or unbalanced focus on this category or only spending money on oneself (Dunn et al., 2008). It is often, and mistakenly, thought that economics deals exclusively with Material Well-Being. However, this is not the case: It is certainly a critical aspect of economics, but economics does not require any particular content of ends sought and deals with whatever ends man seeks (Mises, 1949: 15; Rothbard, 1962: 72). This misunderstanding is simply a result of not recognizing the praxeological nature of economic theory that only deals with the logical structure of action as well as long-standing misconceptions and caricatures of classical economics.
Psychological Well-Being
Psychological well-being is defined in psychological research as “the self-evaluated level of the person’s competence and the self, weighted in terms of the person’s hierarchy of goals” (Lawton, 1996: 328), with the important qualification that it harmonizes with the other Categories of Well-Being.
This is a highly complex concept which ranges from simple pleasure, happiness, and satisfaction that may come from having the economic means to eat a good meal, for instance, up to the satisfaction of a prosperous family life, to higher states of self-actualization and achievement, to the satisfaction of social life, all the way up through Spiritual Well-Being.
Additionally, within this, there can be higher and lower pleasures. For example, one may get pleasure from listening to pop music or from classical music, or from watching cartoons or looking at classical art. In this way, Psychological Well-Being requires a harmony of the Categories of Well-Being.
Psychological Well-Being depends on Material Well-Being since, without the economic means, these considerations of Psychological Well-Being may be inhibited or severely restricted. Practically all rights support Psychological Well-Being in one way or another, even if only indirectly: Monetary policy derived from strict praxeological rights, for instance, does not encourage psychological materialism as does fiat inflationary monetary policy (Hülsmann, 2017[7]), and more indirectly benefits well-being in the long run by facilitating economic progress. Moreover, strict praxeological rights increase stability which has a significant psychological benefit.
A generally unrecognized consideration is that Psychological Well-Being is adversely impacted by an erroneous understanding of economics: Fallacious ideas, such as believing wealthy individuals must have attained their wealth through exploitation, foster ill feelings toward the wealthy where, ceteris paribus, none should exist since their saving and investment in capital structure increases the marginal productivity of labor thereby increasing the standard of living of all in the long run.
Such misdirected negative feelings impact both those to whom they are directed as well as those who experience them. An absence of catalactic understanding results in a misunderstanding which may encourage the detrimental emotions of envy and resentment toward the wealthy, including such ideas as success being exclusively a matter of luck or that only dishonest people can become successful through exploitation. A combination of an absence of a feeling of agency[8] and a sense of exploitation are damaging to the Psychological Well-Being of the individual. Over time, the adverse economic impact on the Material Well-Being of individuals will further encourage envy, for insufficient economic prosperity fosters feelings of envy and resentment.
Misguided views may also promote dissatisfaction with one’s employment by fostering a negative psychological state resulting from feelings of exploitation. This section is not intended to be an exhaustive description of Psychological Well-Being since it is an entire area of study, so the reader is encouraged to read Flourishing (Keyes & Haidt, 2003) for an academic review of the subject.
Social Well-Being
“Keyes (1998) argued that positive functioning consists of more than psychological well-being. Functioning well in life includes social challenges and tasks that reflect an individual’s social well-being (Keyes, 1998). Whereas psychological well-being represents more private and personal criteria for the evaluation of functioning, social well-being epitomizes the more public and social criteria whereby people evaluate their functioning in life. These social dimensions consist of social coherence, social actualization, social integration, social acceptance, and social contribution. Individuals are mentally healthy when they view social life as meaningful and understandable, when they see society as possessing potential for growth, when they feel they belong to their communities, are able to accept all parts of society, and when they see their lives as contributing to society.”
Corey Keyes[9]
Social Well-Being is another highly complex concept which involves positive social relationships and social organization that harmonizes with the other Categories of Well-Being. Morality is a significant aspect, yet it includes other elements of society. For example, since economics is not a separate category, nor limited to Material Well-Being, it is an essential condition for Social Well-Being due to the structure and organization it creates in society under the division of labor as dictated by the Law of Association and even international relations as dictated by the Ricardian Law of Comparative Advantage (which cannot be reduced to the Law of Association when there is a proper understanding of social ontology).
This inseparability is due to the fact that economics structures and organizes substantial portions of modern civilization, and as such, is an essential element of Social Well-Being. If economic systems collapse, so, too, will Social Well-Being, along with the other categories. The deontological account elaborated in a previous post explains the ontological structure and function of social institutions, as well as providing critical deontological elements to morality. Understanding the deontological account facilitates the smooth functioning of social institutions, as well as create a framework for institutional virtues.
It further depends on Material and Psychological Well-Being, for without sufficient material prosperity or Psychological Well-Being, Social Well-Being is adversely impacted. How can one give to charity without sufficient means? How likely is one to nurture a satisfying social life if one must work twelve hours a day, seven days a week? How morally will one act if one is not psychologically well, where willpower is reduced and mood is depressed? These are known considerations in morality and are critical for prosocial behavior.
Certain rights are uniquely critical for Social Well-Being, such as Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Association. What must be considered is that strict adherence to praxeological rights is necessary for maintaining the structural elements which are constitutive of civilization and are necessary to maintain order and function. The economic aspect is critical since it is inseparable from the rest of a person’s life, but also with respect to the incentive structures of society and the promotion of work ethic and honesty.
A monetary policy derived from strict praxeological rights supports savings, investment, and long-term thinking in that it does not encourage opposing behaviors, as well as a less materialistic psychology which is beneficial for Social Well-Being in the long run. This is not to claim that such a policy is designed to alter the valuations of individuals, but rather that such a neutral monetary policy does not distort natural preferences or encourage those which tend to have an adverse effect on prosperity and long-term well-being. Law and justice are a critical element of Social Well-Being since it is part of the glue that holds civilization together and the primary consideration behind this conception of rights.
Another essential element of Social Well-Being in modern civilization is part of Material Well-Being, further emphasizing the harmony of intrinsic values, which is the element of mutually voluntary exchange of property titles in unhampered free markets. The judgment of utility is epistemically subjective and ordinal, and as a result, social utility cannot fundamentally be calculated. However, with mutually voluntary exchange it can be determined that that social utility is maximized through voluntary ex-ante demonstration of preference since both persons anticipated an increase in their epistemically subjective utility.
Without a doubt, this process must be vigilantly guarded with a strict legal system that protects the rights of everyone rather than regulatory intervention. This element of the free-market process is essential for Social Well-Being, and furthermore the long-term increase in prosperity created by this free-market process, ceteris paribus, further improves Social Well-Being in the long run.
As with Psychological Well-Being, erroneous conceptions of economic theory encourage and exacerbate social conflict as a result of an ideology which creates a false class conflict between the “wage earners” and the “capitalists.” Meanwhile, the implementation of interventionist policy creates class conflict by in fact creating the classes of tax-payers and tax-consumers (Rothbard, 2011: 493). This class of tax-consumers includes not only recipients of government assistance but also tax-consumers in the form of government employees.
Other conflicts which arise without a praxeological structure of rights can be observed with entitlement claims and the socioeconomic stress which it creates in proportion to its extent and length of time the policy has been in place, which escalates the class conflict between tax-payers and tax-consumers. In this way, an erroneous view of economics is detrimental to people viewing their lives as contributing to society. Rather than realizing these potentials, erroneous economic beliefs lead people to believe, instead, that they are being exploited by ‘capitalists’ and are contributing to a supposedly corrupt system, rather than making a positive contribution to society.
Spiritual Well-Being
Spiritual Well-Being is a matter of understanding the nature of being and existence and involves spiritual education and practice, and depends, at least to a degree, on the other three categories. However, before proceeding, a likely objection to this category must be addressed: It is expected that many will consider this category to be unnecessary, thinking that spiritual well-being is a matter of psychological well-being. While there is some truth to this due to their interrelation, the spiritual category of well-being is not ontologically reducible to the psychological category of well-being, for psychological well-being is about the contents and experience of mental states, while spiritual well-being is fundamentally about experience itself and its very basis.
While it has been said that man shall not live by bread alone,[10] it has been said that spirituality is not for empty bellies[11] which speak to the importance of at least basic Material Well-Being as support for spiritual practice. While some eremitic monastics, for example, may thrive on asceticism and social isolation, the majority of monastics enjoy and benefit from the social interaction in their monasteries, not to speak of laypersons.
The Right of Freedom of Religion is important for this end, but strict adherence to praxeological rights also has spiritual benefits: without government welfare programs, it appears likely that charity activity would increase based on available data (Snowdon, 2010: 95-99).[12] Charity can play an assisting role in spiritual practice, most notably found in Christian traditions as well as the Karma Yoga tradition in Vedānta influenced by Christianity.
The moderated psychological materialism which results from a monetary policy compatible with praxeological rights[13] may support a more spiritual outlook,[14] while the psychological materialism encouraged by inflationary monetary policy made possible by an absence of strictly enforced praxeological rights leads to many behaviors harmful to Spiritual Well-Being. This may include an increased requirement to focus on investments rather than the option of simple savings which increases the need to pay attention to the activity of other people, companies, and organizations and even political affairs because these types of investments result in higher risk due to market fluctuations—including the business cycle—and possible failure, as well as determining what changes in investments may be needed (Hülsmann, 2017).[15]
With a 100 percent reserve gold standard monetary policy in a progressing economy, simple savings returns interest (Hülsmann, 2008: 182), and savings is simple, relatively care-free, and does not require dependence on paying attention to the behavior of others. This monetary policy is made possible by a legal framework of strict praxeological rights, and over time, increased Material Well-Being by way of a free-market economy will increase the ability to take leisure time which can be used for spiritual practice or at least a more relaxed lifestyle which is not as distracting from spiritual considerations.
One of the more unfortunate misunderstandings is that the type of rights elaborated here requires psychological individualism and a narrow focus on monetary profit, the so-called “homo economicus.” However, this is entirely unfounded: catallactics makes no assumptions as to the ends of man because it is an analysis of the logical structure of human action. One may choose whatever ends desired, and praxeological economic analysis will always remain valid (Mises, 1949: 15).[16]
The detrimental social and psychological effects of an absence of understanding of economics are also harmful to Spiritual Well-Being. Disharmony in life can result from negative emotions directed toward others more successful as well as feelings of resentment toward necessary and beneficial social institutions which are the foundation of modern civilization. Those preoccupied with feelings of envy and resentment will be hampered in their spiritual development.[17]
It must be emphasized that this is not to suggest that praxeological rights would necessarily lead to spiritual societies, but rather it avoids many of the spiritually adverse consequences observed over time with socioeconomic policies which do not respect praxeological rights. Man already has enough spiritual battles to wage without such additional burdens placed on him.
Short and Long-Term Well-Being
The economist Henry Hazlitt made an important distinction in The Foundations of Morality between short and long-term well-being (Hazlitt, 1964: 44 (Chapter 7)). The distinction between the short and long-term categories of well-being correspond to the praxeological categories of sooner and later. These temporal categories of well-being are critical for the concept of General Well-Being elaborated in the following section. The crucial point is that the interests of the individual and society tend toward each other when considering long-term well-being (Hazlitt, 1964: 51).
While short-term well-being is undoubtedly important, it must be harmonized with long-term well-being with respect to the Categories of Well-Being in order to promote General Well-Being and accord with the Natural Law of Human Action. In this way, harmony is created between the individual and society, and while conflicts will always remain, this understanding helps to reduce unnecessary conflict.
One of the functions of consciousness is to permit long-term planning and action for the maintenance of homeostasis of the organism (Damasio, 1999: 124, 201-202[18]), and one significant way that this is accomplished is through the rationality made possible by consciousness. Increasing rationality permits for expanding ability to plan and act for future homeostasis or long-term well-being. Indeed, evidence suggests that those with greater self-control of short-term desires tend to have better long-term life outcomes (Casey et al., 2011).
While there is a legitimate basis for judging many actions as rational or irrational, it must be understood that this does not itself justify the control of behavior by way of legal coercion. It is critical to understand that while there may be a basis for moral judgment and an “ought,” this does not, in and of itself, thereby justify enforcement utilizing coercive legal force by the government. This distinction is due to the nature of the type of harm as well as the degree of epistemic objectivity and degree of confidence for the behavior in question: That which does not result in demonstrable material harm with either absolute or strong epistemic objectivity is unable to justify coercive legal enforcement and must remain in the realm of social enforcement.[19]
General Well-Being
General Well-Being is the temporal harmony of the Categories of Well-Being, or the harmony of short and long-term aspects of all four Categories of Well-Being. With respect to General Well-Being, the well-being of the individual and society tends to converge. In this way, General Well-Being does not give preference to the individual over society or society over the individual, nor does it to give preference to the long-term over the short-term or vice versa. General Well-Being is a harmony or integration of all four Categories of Well-Being and their temporal categories, which tends to harmonize not only for the individual but for society as well.
“The clue that there is a normative component to the notion of function is that once we have described something in terms of function we can introduce a normative vocabulary. […] a function is a cause that serves a purpose. And the purposes have to come from somewhere; in this case, they come from human beings. In this sense, functions are intentionality-relative and therefore mind dependent.”
John R. Searle [20]
It is the recognition of the functional aspects of morality and well-being which provide a basis for rights since the need for General Well-Being is recognized as implied in the category of action. This need is Intentionality-dependent and a functional concept, but for man such a need is quite real, whether or not any individual recognizes that need. However, the recognition of this need, this function or purpose, is essential for a system of rights.
Summary
The integration or temporal harmony of the Categories of Well-Being provide a structure for understanding human well-being in the form of General Well-Being as part of the Natural Law of Human Action, and constitutions a fundamental aspect of moral theory. Law is inherently moral in that it involves social organization and is, therefore, a critical part of Social Well-Being, and a praxeological conception of rights provides structural support for the well-being of man. The details of these categories deserves book-length treatment, but this post provides a basic sketch of the structure.
[1] The Categories of Well-Being is an adapted form of the hierarchy of values in Indian philosophy. In Indian philosophy, these four values are referred to as the Puruṣārtha, literally the “object of human pursuit,” which consists of the four puruṣārthas of artha, kama, dharma, and mokṣa, and properly conceived, correspond with the Categories of Well-Being of Material Well-Being, Psychological Well-Being, Social Well-Being, and Spiritual Well-Being respectively.
[2] Higher is meant in terms of meaning.
[3] Rothbard has made a statement somewhat similar; “[…] the preservation and furtherance of one’s life takes on the stature of an incontestable axiom.” (Rothbard, 1982: 32). Mises also stated that “Value is the importance that acting man attaches to ultimate ends. Only to ultimate ends is primary and original value assigned. Means are valued derivatively according to their serviceableness in contributing to the attainment of ultimate ends. Their valuation is derived from the valuation of the respective ends. […] Value is not intrinsic, it is not in things. It is within us; it is the way in which man reacts to the conditions of his environment.” (Mises, 1949: 96 [emphasis added]). While this may, at first, appear to contradict the statement above, it must be understood that the intrinsic life values of the Categories of Well-Being are intrinsic for the reason exactly as Mises stated: They are within us in that they are intrinsic to living, conscious organisms. The statement means that values cannot be intrinsic to external ontologically objective objects.
[4] See Flourishing: Positive Psychology and the Life Well-Lived, edited by Keyes and Haidt (2003) for a general academic introduction to the field of positive psychology.
[5] The key is with valid desire-independent reasons for action which are possible as a result of teleology and a proper conception of rationality. The term “objective” in the context of desire-independent reasons for action is multiply ambiguous and requires differentiation between epistemic and ontological senses, as well as the degree of epistemic objectivity. The elimination of teleology from human action and the use of the erroneous classical theory of rationality creates the artificial is-ought distinction. While in certain circumstances an ought can be logically deduced from an is (Searle, 1964), most areas of human action involve weak epistemic objectivity, and therefore the requirement of a deductive standard is inappropriate.
[6] This is not to deny that poverty can be conducive to Spiritual Well-Being, but rather that generally speaking, poor economic conditions in a society lead to conditions that generally distract people from higher ends due to the necessity to procure basic goods of survival.
[7] “But in a fiat money system, as price inflation diminishes the value of one’s monetary savings, we are encouraged to adopt a short-term perspective. That is, we need to hurry up to obtain credit as soon as possible and obtain revenue from that debt as soon as possible, because savings lose value if we just hold on to cash,” and “We become more materialistic than under a natural monetary system. We can’t just sit on our savings anymore, and we have to watch our investments constantly, and think about revenue constantly, because if it is not earning enough, we are actively getting poorer.”
[8] Those with an external locus of control report lower well-being (Larson, 1989). See (Twenge et al., 2004: 316) for a review of the negative impact of an external locus of control. Furthermore, it is argued that well-being must take into account a person’s worldview (Nilsson, 2014).
[9] (Keyes, 2003: 300)
[10] Matthew 4:4; Luke 4:4; Deuteronomy 8:3
[11] This quote has been attributed to Swami Vivekananda which is supposed to have originated with his teacher Ramakrishna.
[12] See also “The Costs of Public Income Redistribution and Private Charity” (Edwards, 2007)
[13] This requires elaboration, but in short it must be some sort of 100% reserve banking, whether by gold standard or block-chain digital currency. Anything other than a 100% reserve standard violates property rights.
[14] In a sense, at least, of not discouraging spiritual development and practice as a result of behavior changes resulting from fiat inflationary monetary policy.
[15] “We become more materialistic than under a natural monetary system. We can’t just sit on our savings anymore, and we have to watch our investments constantly, and think about revenue constantly, because if it is not earning enough, we are actively getting poorer. […] The fact that the fiat money system pushes us into riskier investments also increases dependency on others because one must depend upon the good behavior of those on whom the value of our investments depend.”
[16] “Praxeology is indifferent to the ultimate goals of action. Its findings are valid for all kinds of action irrespective of the ends aimed at.”
[17] For instance: Proverbs 14:30: For wrath killeth the foolish man, and envy slayeth the silly one (KJV); Job 5:2: For wrath killeth the foolish man, and envy slayeth the silly one (KJV). Gīta 3:31: One who executes his duties according to My injunctions and who follows this teaching faithfully, without envy, becomes free from the bondage of fruitive actions. (Prabhuapada, 1972) While one may object to quotation of religious scripture, such an objection demonstrates insufficient understanding of Spiritual Well-Being, for no research has to this point even approached the subject, let alone passed the test of time.
[18] “An organism with extended consciousness gives evidence of planning of complex behaviors, not just on the moment but over longer internals of time—many hours and days, weeks and months. […] The assessment of extended consciousness can be achieved by assessing recognition, recall, working memory, emotion and feeling, and reasoning and decision making over large intervals of time in an individual whose core consciousness is intact.”
[19] It is acknowledged that government action may be justifiable in certain circumstances involving extraordinary disruption in certain cases, such as laws against extraordinary obscenity.
[20] John Searle, Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization (2010) pp. 59 [emphasis in original].
Works Cited:
Casey; B. J., Somerville; L. H., Gotlib; I. H., Ayduk; O., Franklin; N. T., Askren; M. K., … Shoda; Y. (2011) “Behavioral and neural correlates of delay of gratification 40 years later.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(36): 14998–15003. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1108561108.
Damasio; Antonio. (1999) The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness. U.S.A.: Harcourt, Inc. First Harvest edition (2000) ISBN: 0-15-601075-5.
Dunn; Elizabeth W., Aknin; Lara B., Norton; Michael I. (2008) Spending money on others promotes happiness. Science, March 21;319(5870):1687-8. doi: 10.1126/science.1150952.
Edwards, James R. (2007) “The Costs of Public Income Redistribution and Private Charity.” Journal of Libertarian Studies 21, No. 2: 3–20.
Hazlitt; Henry. (1964) The Foundations of Morality. Auburn, U.S.A.: The Ludwig von Mises Institute (2010) ISBN: 978-1-61016-251-7.
Hülsmann; Jörg Guido. (2008) The Ethics of Money Production. Auburn, U.S.A.: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, ISBN: 978-1-933550-09-01.
Hülsmann; Jörg Guido. (2017) “The Cultural Consequences of the Federal Reserve.” in Mises Wire Blog, June 1st, Ludwig von Mises Institute, URL: https://mises.org/blog/cultural-consequences-federal-reserve o-f
Keyes; Corey L. M. (2003) “Complete Mental Health: an Agenda for the 21st Century.” Printed in Flourishing: Positive Psychology and the Life Well-Lived. Amer Psychological Assn; First edition (2003), ISBN-10: 1557989303, ISBN-13: 978-1557989307.
Keyes; Corey L.M. & Haidt, Jonathan. (2003) Flourishing: Positive Psychology and the Life Well-Lived. Amer Psychological Assn; First edition, ISBN-10: 1557989303, ISBN-13: 978-1557989307.
Larson, R. (1989) “Is feeling “in control” related to happiness in daily life?” Psychological Reports, 1964, 775-784.
Lawton, M. P. (1996) “Quality of life and affect in later life.” In Handbook of Emotion, Adult Development, and Aging. (p. 347-348), Carol Magai & Susan H. McFadden (eds.) San Diego, U.S.A.: Academic Press (2011). ISBN-10: 0123886791.
Mises; Ludwig von. (1949) Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Auburn, U.S.A.: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, The Scholar’s Edition (1998) ISBN: 978-1-933550-31-2. Available online: https://cdn.mises.org/Human%20Action_3.pdf
Nilsson, Arthur. (2014) “A non-reductive science of personality, character, and well-being must take the person’s worldview into account.” Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 5, Art. 961.
Prabhupadā; Swami. (1972) Bhagavad-Gītā As It Is, Marina del Rey, U.S.A.: Krishna Books, Inc. (2013) ISBN: 978-1-60293-000-1. Note: this translation was chosen on the basis of translation alone for this verse, not the translator’s exposition of the text.
Rothbard; Murray N. (1982) The Ethics of Liberty. New York, U.S.A.: New York University Press (2002) ISBN: 0-8147-7559-4.
Rothbard; Murray N. (2011) Economic Controversies. Auburn, U.S.A.: The Ludwig von Mises Institute; 1st edition, ISBN: 978-1-933550-96-1.
Searle; John R. (1964) “How to derive “ought” from “is.”“ The Philosophical Review, 73(1): 43-58. doi: 10.2307/2183201.
Searle; John R. (2001) Rationality in Action. Cambridge, U.S.A.: The MIT Press, ISBN: 0-262-69282-1.
Searle; John R. (2010) Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization. New York, U.S.A.: Oxford University Press, 1 edition, ISBN: 978-0-19-539617-1.
Snowdon; Christopher. (2010) The Spirit Level Delusion. North Yorkshire, U.K.: Little Dice, ISBN: 978-0-9562265-1-8.
Twenge; Jean M., Zhang; Liqing & Im; Charles. (2004) “It’s Beyond My Control: A Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis of Increasing Externality in Locus of Control, 1960-2002.” Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 8, No. 3, 308-319.
