I analyze and assess James Griffin’s account of well-being, as developed in his books “Well-Being” (1986) and “Value Judgment” (1996) and in various papers. Griffin doubts the worth of any objective-subjective distinction here, but I defend it, and use it to analyze Griffin’s own account. I then argue that Griffin has not made a persuasive case for the main subjectivist elements in his account. On the other hand, I support Griffin’s pluralism about basic prudential values, subject to some suggested revisions. Overall, I argue for an objectivist pluralism that builds on many of Griffin’s own central claims about well-being.
