  Methodologies for evaluating and selecting policies that contribute to the
well-being of diverse populations need clarification. To bridge the gap between
objective indicators and policies related to well-being, this study shifts from
constitutive pluralism based on objective indicators to conceptual pluralism
that emphasizes subjective context, develops from subject-object pluralism
through individual-group pluralism to WE pluralism, and presents a new policy
evaluation method that combines joint fact-finding based on policy plurality.
First, to evaluate policies involving diverse stakeholders, I develop from
individual subjectivity-objectivity to individual subjectivity and group
intersubjectivity, and then move to a narrow-wide WE pluralism in the gradation
of I-family-community-municipality-nation-world. Additionally, by referring to
some functional forms of well-being, I formulate the dependence of well-being
on narrow-wide WE. Finally, given that policies themselves have a plurality of
social, ecological, and economic values, I define a set of policies for each of
the narrow-wide WE and consider a mapping between the two to provide an
evaluation basis. Furthermore, by combining well-being and joint fact-finding
on the narrow-wide WE consensus, the policy evaluation method is formulated.
The fact-value combined parameter system, combined policy-making approach, and
combined impact evaluation are disclosed as examples of implementation. This
paper contributes to the realization of a well-being society by bridging
philosophical theory and policies based on WE pluralism and presenting a new
method of policy evaluation based on subjective context and consensus building.
