Philosophy and Psychology: Self-Directedness and Self-Determination
By Edward W. Younkins
December 22, 2025
SUBSCRIBE TO SAVVY STREET (It's Free)
The pursuit of human flourishing has long united philosophy and psychology.
The pursuit of human flourishing has long united philosophy and psychology. From Aristotle’s conception of eudaimonia as living well through virtuous activity, to contemporary psychology’s focus on intrinsic motivation and autonomy — both fields seek to understand what makes life worth living. This article explores the complementarity between philosophers Douglas B. Rasmussen and Douglas J. Den Uyl’s neo-Aristotelian philosophy of Individualistic Perfectionism and the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) developed by psychologists Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci. By examining the shared emphasis on self-directedness and self-determination, we uncover a unified framework that illuminates the moral, psychological, and political dimensions of human flourishing. The thesis advanced here is that self-directedness and self-determination represent mutually reinforcing expressions of autonomy and virtue, grounded in the Aristotelian ideal of eudaimonia. The compatibility between self-directedness and self-determination is striking because they address the same phenomenon—authentic agency—at different levels of analysis. Self-directedness describes the ethical ideal and structural requirement for achieving the good life: one must be the rational author of one’s own life. Self-determination describes the psychological experience and mechanism through which one feels and is an agent in daily action.
Self-Directedness in Neo-Aristotelian Individualistic Perfectionism
In their seminal works, including Norms of Liberty (2005) and The Perfectionist Turn (2016) Douglas B. Rasmussen and Douglas J. Den Uyl develop a neo-Aristotelian ethical framework called Individualistic Perfectionism. At the heart of this view lies the concept of self-directedness — the capacity of a rational agent to guide his or her own life according to reason, virtue, and the pursuit of flourishing. Unlike collectivist or consequentialist ethics, Individualistic Perfectionism emphasizes that the good life must be self-chosen, self-governed, and self-realized (Rasmussen and Den Uyl, 2016).
Self-directedness derives from the Aristotelian understanding that humans are teleological beings — that is, entities with a natural end or telos that consists in rational activity in accordance with virtue. Flourishing, or eudaimonia, is not a passive state but an active mode of being in which individuals exercise practical wisdom (phronēsis) to integrate moral virtues with their concrete life circumstances. For Rasmussen and Den Uyl, moral self-direction entails not only rational self-governance but also an ethical orientation toward the full development of one’s capacities as a person.
Because human flourishing is individualized — political principles must protect the preconditions of self-direction rather than prescribe particular ends.
Because human flourishing is individualized — each person’s flourishing must be achieved by that person’s own rational activity — Rasmussen and Den Uyl argue that political principles must protect the preconditions of self-direction rather than prescribe particular ends. This is the function of rights as metanorms. Rights are moral principles that identify the conditions of social interaction necessary for self-directedness to flourish. They do not specify how one ought to live morally, but rather ensure that individuals are free to live as moral agents (Rasmussen and Den Uyl, 2005). Thus, self-directedness serves as both a moral and metaphysical foundation for liberty and flourishing.
Several key features characterize their account of flourishing: it is objective (based on human nature), inclusive (comprising multiple goods), individualized (manifested differently across persons), agent-relative (valued from the perspective of the individual), self-directed (requiring personal agency), and social (developed in community with others). This view preserves the objectivity of value while respecting the diversity of human pursuits and acknowledging that each person has a unique constellation of talents, relationships, circumstances, and potentialities that shape their particular path to flourishing.
Perhaps their most innovative contribution lies in their theory of rights as metanorms. Rather than viewing political principles as directly prescribing moral conduct, they argue that the purpose of political society is to create the conditions under which individual moral flourishing can occur. As they articulate, liberalism is not a “normative political philosophy” in the usual sense but rather “a political philosophy of metanorms. It seeks not to guide individual conduct in moral activity, but rather to regulate conduct so that conditions might be obtained where moral action can take place”. This framework thereby separates political principles from comprehensive moral theories, creating space for diverse conceptions of flourishing while protecting the possibility of self-direction.
Self-Determination Theory
On the psychological side, Self-Determination Theory (SDT) has emerged as a comprehensive framework for understanding human motivation, development, and well-being. SDT is a macro-theory of human motivation and personality that examines people’s inherent growth tendencies and innate psychological needs. The theory begins with the organismic dialectical assumption that human beings are active organisms with natural tendencies toward growth, mastery, and integration of their experiences into a coherent sense of self. However, these natural developmental tendencies do not operate automatically but require supportive social conditions to flourish.
Self-Determination Theory (SDT), developed by psychologists Ryan and Deci, is one of the most influential frameworks in contemporary motivational psychology. SDT holds that human beings possess three innate psychological needs — autonomy, competence, and relatedness — whose fulfillment is essential for psychological growth, wellbeing, and intrinsic motivation (Ryan and Deci, 2000). These needs correspond closely to Aristotelian and neo-Aristotelian conceptions of the human good.
Autonomy refers to the experience of self-endorsed action.
Autonomy refers to the experience of self-endorsed action — acting from one’s own will and values rather than from external pressures. Competence is the sense of efficacy and mastery in one’s pursuits, while relatedness concerns the formation of meaningful, reciprocal relationships. According to SDT, motivation is most conducive to flourishing when it is intrinsic — when actions are undertaken for their own sake, as expressions of one’s authentic self (Ryan and Deci, 2017).
The parallels with self-directedness are striking. Just as Rasmussen and Den Uyl regard moral agency as the self-guided exercise of reason in pursuit of one’s flourishing, Ryan and Deci define autonomy as the psychological capacity to integrate one’s values, goals, and behaviors into a coherent sense of self. Both frameworks reject heteronomy — the subordination of one’s agency to external dictates — as incompatible with human excellence. In both, freedom is not mere license, but the disciplined direction of one’s actions toward worthy ends.
Connecting Eudaimonia with Self-Determination Theory
Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonia — often translated as flourishing or living well — emphasizes activity in accordance with virtue. Eudaimonia is not reducible to pleasure or subjective satisfaction but represents the actualization of human potential through reason and moral character. Self-Determination Theory, though empirical and psychological, shares this eudaimonic orientation. It focuses on the quality of motivation and the alignment of actions with authentic values. Ryan, Huta, and Deci (2008) explicitly link eudaimonia with autonomous motivation, arguing that eudaimonic living involves pursuing goals that express one’s true self.
This connection between SDT and Aristotelian ethics bridges philosophy and psychology.
This connection between SDT and Aristotelian ethics bridges philosophy and psychology. While Aristotle and Rasmussen and Den Uyl provide a normative account of flourishing, SDT provides an empirical account of the psychological mechanisms that enable it. Together, they show that well-being depends on the integration of autonomy, competence, and virtue — dimensions that collectively define a self-directed and self-determined life.
The Aristotelian concept of eudaimonia provides a crucial bridge connecting the philosophical and psychological frameworks of Individualistic Perfectionism and SDT. Although often translated as “happiness,” eudaimonia more properly signifies human flourishing – a life well-lived in accordance with one’s natural function as a rational being. For Aristotle, eudaimonia constitutes the highest human good, representing an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue and reason over a complete life. This conception moves beyond transient emotional states to encompass the full realization of human potentials.
The compatibility between eudaimonia and SDT becomes evident when we examine their shared emphases. Both eudaimonia and SDT conceptualize optimal human functioning as involving active engagement rather than mere pleasure or satisfaction. Both approaches focus on the development and realization of human potentials rather than simply the absence of pathology. SDT’s concept of vitality as an indicator of mental and physical wellness parallels the Aristotelian view of flourishing as energetic actualization of human capacities. Both frameworks maintain that there are objective conditions for human flourishing, whether conceived as virtues in the Aristotelian tradition or basic psychological needs in SDT. Both approaches consider autonomous functioning as essential to wellbeing. As Rasmussen and Den Uyl argue, “human flourishing must be attained through an individual’s own efforts and cannot be the result of factors that are beyond his or her control,” while SDT identifies autonomy as one of three fundamental psychological needs.
Eudaimonic Ways of Living: Applying Self-Directedness and Self-Determination
When the philosophical idea of self-directedness is combined with the psychological principles of SDT, a variety of eudaimonic lifestyles emerge as candidates for human flourishing. Such ways of living involve activities that express rational self-governance, intrinsic motivation, and the development of moral and intellectual virtue. Examples include: creative work, entrepreneurship, scientific inquiry, artistic pursuit, moral self-improvement, and the cultivation of deep personal relationships.
These activities embody the integration of autonomy and excellence. They are chosen freely, pursued with agency, and contribute to the realization of human potential. They also illustrate what Ryan and Deci call autonomous functioning, where one’s actions stem from self-endorsed values rather than external coercion. From the Aristotelian perspective, such lives are expressions of practical wisdom — the capacity to deliberate well about how to live. Eudaimonic living therefore entails both moral self-direction and psychological self-determination.
Integrating the perspectives of Individualistic Perfectionism and Self-Determination Theory allows us to identify several ways of living that represent strong candidates for eudaimonic flourishing. These approaches to life honor both the universal requirements of human nature and the individualized expression of personal values, talents, and circumstances.
In addition, both frameworks recognize that individual flourishing occurs within a social context and typically involves contributions to something outside of oneself. While Individualistic Perfectionism emphasizes the agent-relative nature of value, it also acknowledges our social nature. SDT similarly identifies relatedness as a basic psychological need. The eudaimonic individual therefore seeks ways to participate meaningfully with others whether through voluntary associations and communities, allegiance to persons, institutions, and/or causes, religious or political pursuits, and other forms of civic engagement. Such activities satisfy the need for relatedness while providing opportunities to express personal values and competencies in socially beneficial ways. Men are ontologically unique individuals, who are not only born into a universal human community of shared mortality, but, because of their nature, also have potentialities which can only be realized through association with other human beings. A person’s moral maturation requires a life with others. It therefore follows that charitable conduct can be viewed as an expression one’s self-perfection.
Both frameworks emphasize the importance of goal-directed activity that provides a sense of mastery and accomplishment. From the SDT perspective, pursuing intrinsic goals that satisfy basic psychological needs promotes greater wellbeing than pursuing extrinsic goals like wealth or fame. Similarly, Individualistic Perfectionism emphasizes productiveness as a cardinal virtue that enables individuals to create material values and exercise their capacities. The eudaimonic individual therefore seeks work that: provides opportunities for skill development (competence); aligns with personal values and interests (autonomy); and contributes to something beyond themselves (relatedness to broader community). This integration transforms work from mere instrumentality to an expression of personal identity and purpose.
Aristotle and SDT scholars converge on the claim that autonomy or self-direction lies at the heart of human flourishing.
Aristotle and SDT scholars converge on the claim that autonomy or self-direction lies at the heart of human flourishing. For Aristotle, moral virtue is a state concerned with choice, grounded in reason and cultivated by habit. For SDT, autonomy is realized through reflective endorsement: choosing goals that align with one’s true self. As Ryan and Deci describe, eudaimonia involves reflective self-endorsement and mindfulness —qualities enabling individuals to act in accordance with their daimon, their inner guiding principle. Thus, both frameworks affirm that flourishing requires living by self-chosen values grounded in rational reflection.
While individualism sometimes connotes isolation, both frameworks recognize that high-quality relationships are essential components of flourishing. SDT’s Relationship Motivation Theory (RMT) posits that the highest quality relationships satisfy all three basic psychological needs – not just relatedness, but also autonomy and competence. Similarly, Rasmussen and Den Uyl acknowledge flourishing as fundamentally social in nature. Eudaimonic relationships are characterized by mutual support for each person’s autonomy, growth, and individual flourishing rather than dependency or control. Such relationships involve connecting with others while maintaining personal integrity and supporting the self-direction of both individuals.
Both Aristotelian and SDT perspectives recognize that excellence develops through consistent practice rather than through momentary intentions. Aristotle emphasized that virtues become established through habituation – “we become just by performing just acts.” Similarly, SDT research shows that internalizing regulations for behavior requires supportive conditions and repeated engagement. The eudaimonic individual therefore approaches virtue development as a lifelong process of growth, recognizing that traits like wisdom, courage, and integrity must be cultivated through deliberate practice in daily life. This process requires the metacognitive capacity to reflect on one’s values and align one’s actions with them consistently.
The exercise of rationality represents a core aspect of human nature in both frameworks. Aristotle identified reasoning as our distinctive function, while SDT highlights the importance of novelty and challenge for maintaining intrinsic motivation. The eudaimonic individual therefore cultivates intellectual curiosity and continuous learning, seeking opportunities to engage with interesting and challenging ideas and experiences. This involves developing what SDT calls an autonomy orientation in which one acts out of interest in and valuing of what is occurring. Such engagement represents a form of self-cultivation that develops human capacities while providing inherent satisfaction.
Integrating Rights, Self-Directedness, and Self-Determination
Rasmussen and Den Uyl’s doctrine of rights as metanorms provides the political complement to SDT’s psychology. If self-directedness and self-determination are essential to flourishing, then a free society must protect the conditions that make them possible. Rights define the boundaries of moral space within which individuals can pursue their own perfection without coercion. They are metanormative because they govern the context of moral action rather than its content (Rasmussen and Den Uyl, 2005).
Within this framework, SDT’s emphasis on autonomy gains ethical and political significance. Autonomy can flourish only under conditions of liberty and respect for individual rights. Likewise, the perfectionist ideal of moral self-direction gains psychological realism when grounded in SDT’s understanding of intrinsic motivation and competence. Together, these theories suggest that human flourishing is best promoted in a society that values freedom, personal responsibility, and self-development.
The integration of self-directedness (from Individualistic Perfectionism), rights as metanorms, and self-determination theory provides a powerful framework for enhancing human wellbeing at both individual and societal levels. This integration recognizes that flourishing requires both internal psychological resources and supportive social conditions.
At the individual level, this integrated approach suggests several strategies for enhancing well-being. Because flourishing requires self-direction according to one’s own values and nature, developing clarified values provides essential guidance for life choices. Practices such as reflective journaling, contemplative exercises, and seeking feedback from trusted others can help individuals identify what they genuinely value apart from external expectations.
Both frameworks recognize that well-being flourishes in environments that support basic needs. Individuals can deliberately structure their micro-environments (home, work, social circles) to provide ongoing support for autonomy, competence, and relatedness while minimizing controlling influences.
SDT research shows that greater internalization of extrinsic motivations enhances autonomy and well-being. Individuals can work toward integrating regulations by finding personal meaning in necessary activities, connecting them to deeply held values, and acknowledging feelings of resistance while still choosing valued actions.
At the societal level, the integration of metanorms with self-determination theory makes provides several insights. Rasmussen and Den Uyl’s concept of rights as metanorms suggests that political institutions should focus on creating the conditions for flourishing rather than prescribing particular conceptions of the good life. This aligns with SDT’s emphasis on autonomy support as crucial for motivation and well-being.
Educational systems designed to support autonomy, competence, and relatedness foster both intrinsic motivation for learning and overall well-being. This includes providing meaningful choice (autonomy support), optimal challenges (competence support), and collaborative learning opportunities (relatedness support).
Organizations can enhance employee wellbeing and performance by creating conditions that support basic psychological needs rather than relying on external controls. This includes involving employees in decision-making (e.g., participative management), providing effectiveness support, and fostering positive interpersonal connections.
Synergistic Effects: Freedom and Flourishing in Interaction
The interaction between Aristotelian eudaimonic thinking, Individualistic Perfectionism, Self-Determination Theory, and positive psychology produces several important synergistic effects that enrich our understanding of human flourishing beyond what any single perspective could provide.
First, these frameworks together resolve the apparent tension between objective values and individual diversity. The Aristotelian tradition provides an account of human nature and flourishing that is objective and based on our shared humanity, while Individualistic Perfectionism and SDT acknowledge that this flourishing takes individualized forms based on personal talents, circumstances, and choices. The synergy here reveals that objectivity and individuality are not opposites; rather, the objective human good precisely consists in the realization of our distinctive capacities through self-directed activity.
Second, these perspectives collectively emphasize that flourishing requires both internal development and external conditions. Virtue ethics focuses on the cultivation of character, while SDT examines the psychological needs essential for growth and wellbeing, and Individualistic Perfectionism analyzes the political conditions that enable diverse forms of flourishing. Together, they provide a more comprehensive account that acknowledges our personal responsibility for developing virtue while also recognizing our dependence on supportive environments.
Third, these frameworks combine to offer both theoretical depth and empirical validation. Philosophical analysis provides conceptual clarity and normative justification, while psychological research offers empirical testing and practical application. For instance, philosophy’s concept of eudaimonia finds operationalization and measurement in positive psychology’s models of flourishing, creating a fruitful dialogue between conceptual and empirical approaches.
Finally, these integrated perspectives help resolve the ancient question of whether virtue is sufficient for flourishing. Aristotle acknowledged that severe misfortune can impede flourishing, while SDT research shows that need-supportive environments enhance well-being . The integrated view suggests that while virtue (self-perfection) is the central component of flourishing, its full achievement is facilitated by environments that support basic psychological needs and protect self-direction through metanormative principles.
Conclusion
The convergence of Rasmussen and Den Uyl’s Individualistic Perfectionism with Ryan and Deci’s Self-Determination Theory yields a comprehensive vision of human flourishing. Both affirm that autonomy is not merely freedom from constraint but freedom for self-realization. Both regard moral and psychological development as inseparable from rational self-governance. The Aristotelian idea of eudaimonia provides the philosophical foundation; SDT supplies the empirical mechanisms. When combined with the political protection of rights as metanorms, these ideas form a unified framework for enhancing human wellbeing in a free society.
In education, leadership, therapy, and civic life, integrating self-directedness and self-determination fosters authentic growth, personal responsibility, and moral excellence. A flourishing person is one who lives freely, rationally, and virtuously — not because they are compelled to, but because they have chosen to do so. In this way, philosophy and psychology together affirm the deepest truth of human nature: that to live well is to live self-directedly and self-determinedly in the pursuit of excellence and fulfillment.
This examination has demonstrated the remarkable compatibility and synergy between neo-Aristotelian philosophical perspectives and contemporary psychological research on self-determination and well-being. Rasmussen and Den Uyl’s Individualistic Perfectionism, with its emphasis on self-directedness and rights as metanorms, provides a robust philosophical foundation for understanding how diverse individuals can pursue objective goods through unique paths. Deci and Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory complements this framework by identifying the universal psychological needs and social conditions that support motivation, growth, and well-being.
Their integration around the concept of eudaimonia offers a multidimensional account of human flourishing that honors both our shared human nature and our individual differences. This integrated perspective suggests that the good life involves self-directed activity in pursuit of meaningful goals, cultivation of virtue and competence, formation of authentic relationships, and contribution to communities all within social contexts that support autonomy, competence, and relatedness rather than imposing particular conceptions of the good life.
For individuals seeking to enhance their well-being, this integration suggests the importance of clarifying personal values, designing supportive environments, and engaging in purposeful activities that develop character and competence. For societies seeking to enable human flourishing, it suggests the importance of creating political and educational structures that protect self-direction while supporting basic psychological needs.
Perhaps the most significant implication of this integrated perspective is that freedom and flourishing are intrinsically connected. Political liberty creates the space for self-direction, which enables individuals to discover and pursue their unique paths to flourishing, while psychological need-support allows them to develop the autonomy, competence, and relatedness necessary for wellbeing. By honoring both our shared human needs and our individual differences, this integrated framework points toward a society that enables diverse forms of human excellence to flourish.
In sum, Individualistic Perfectionism provides the ethical map (Eudaimonia via self-directed reason), SDT provides the psychological engine (needs satisfaction for motivation), and rights as metanorms provide the political blueprint (liberty for action). Together, they construct a comprehensive and highly optimistic model for enhancing human wellbeing and realizing human potential
Recommended Reading
Aristotle. (1985). Nicomachean Ethics. Trans. Terence Irwin. Hackett.
Den Uyl, Douglas J. and Rasmussen, Douglas B. (2016). The Perfectionist Turn: From
Metanorms to Metaethics. Edinburgh University Press.
Rasmussen, Douglas B. and Den Uyl, Douglas J. (2005). Norms of Liberty: A Perfectionist Basis for Non-Perfectionist Politics. Penn State University Press.
Rasmussen, Douglas B. and Den Uyl, Douglas J. (2020). The Realist Turn: Repositioning Liberalism. Palgrave Macmillan.
Ryan, Richard M. and Deci, Edward L. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
Ryan, Richard M. and Martela, Frank. (2017) “Eudaimonia as a Way of Living: Connecting Aristotle with Self-Determination Theory” In Handbook of Eudaimonic Well-Being. Springer.
Ryan, Richard M., and Deci, Edward L. (2017). Self-Determination Theory: Basic
Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. Guilford Press.
Ryan, Richard M., Huta, Veronica., and Deci, Edward L. (2008). “Living Well: A Self
Determination Theory Perspective on Eudaimonia Journal of Happiness Studies 9(1), 139
170.
About the Author: Edward W. Younkins
