Flourishing

I have previously argued that human flourishing partly consists in the ability to exercise essential human capacities, many of which are non-distinctive and shared with other animals. The concept of flourishing is itself species-specific. Thus, the development of essential capacities (human and nonhuman) comprises a large part of the goods that we ought to promote. Problems about the definition of ‘essential’ are discussed, as are related issues about whether there are necessary and sufficient conditions for the correct use of sortal universal terms. The relation of the exercise of essential capacities to basic needs is investigated, and the essential nature of the human capacity for meaningful work, which has been disputed by John White, is defended. Finally, some suggestions are offered about what the proponents of the capabilities approach might derive from that of essential capacities.

Objective: This study aimed to validate the Persian version of the Relationship Flourishing Scale (RFS) on a sample of married Iranian students. Method: The study was descriptive-correlational and applied in nature. The sample consisted of 352 individuals (89% female), selected through multi-stage cluster sampling. The data collection tools included the Fowers et al.'s Relationship Flourishing Scale (2016), Adams et al.'s Sexual Mindfulness Questionnaire (2015), and the short form of Booth et al.'s Marital Instability Questionnaire (1989). Data analysis was performed using SPSS26 and AMOS24 software, utilizing descriptive statistics and confirmatory factor analysis (Cronbach's Alpha, Pearson correlation, and construct validity and reliability). Findings: The results of the confirmatory factor analysis were satisfactory, confirming the psychometric properties of the Relationship Flourishing Scale. The factor structure of the questionnaire, consisting of four factors (having meaning, shared goals, personal growth, and being in a relationship), was validated. Cronbach's Alpha calculated for the overall questionnaire was 0.83, and for the factors having meaning, shared goals, personal growth, and being in a relationship, it was 0.82, 0.83, 0.89, and 0.80 respectively, confirming the construct reliability. Fit indices (GFI = 0.90, NFI = 0.92, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.91, CMIN/df = 4.92) were within acceptable ranges, and construct validity was confirmed. Conclusions: The factor structure of the original English version of the Relationship Flourishing Scale was replicated, and satisfactory internal reliability was found. Consequently, the translated Persian version of the Relationship Flourishing Scale can serve as a valid tool for assessing the quality of marital relationships in research and clinical settings within the Iranian community.