Happiness In Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics

The fact that happiness is a state of well-being pursued by humans since the beginning of humanity is not new. Since the ancient Greek philosophers, happiness has always been a goal for people. However, the definition of happiness is still subjective and controversial as Mark Kingwell, an award-winning social critic, essayist, and professor of philosophy at the University of Toronto, presents in his article “In pursuit of Happiness." The author begins to build his credibility by calling everyday facts and emotions, also by citing philosophers, researchers, and other authors. Using the sources effectively in a persuasive piece, Kingwell demonstrates, through examples and science researches, the difficulty in defining happiness, which can result in unhappiness.

Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics begins by exploring ‘the good’. Book I argues that, unlike other goods, “happiness appears to be something complete and self-sufficient, and is, therefore, the end of actions” (10:1097b20-21). In other words, happiness is the ultimate good. But how does one achieve happiness? Aristotle formulates this in the context of work, since for all things, from artists to horses, “the good and the doing it well seem to be in the work” (10:1097b27-28). Much like the work of a harpist is to play the harp, “the work of a human being is a being-at-work of the soul in accordance with reason” (11:1098a7-8). Moreover, in order to achieve the good, it is important that each being performs his work excellently. While all harpists’

There are different perspectives on happiness, two of which are the hedonic and the eudaimonic views. Both views have roots in philosophy, such as Aristotle and Aristippus. Despite their ancient origins, these views on human well-being are relevant even today. The hedonic view encompasses the idea those people are happiest when their life is filled with positive experiences and emotions, without negative ones. According to Fredrickson et al. (2013), hedonism can be also defined as “representing an individual’s pleasurable experiences”. Aristotle, in contrast, thought the idea that wellbeing depended on a life of pleasure with no pain was vulgar Aristotle’s view seems fair; after all, some of life’s greatest things come only with a bit of sweat, tears and elbow grease. Then there is the eudaimonic perspective. In the same paper by Fredrickson et al. (2013), states that eudaimonism “results from striving towards meaning and a noble purpose beyond simple gratification”.

Aristotle was philosopher that truly believed that happiness is the goal of living, and we must distinguish the difference between pleasure and happiness. Genuine happiness lies in action that leads to virtue according to Aristotle and this is seen

In all of Plato 's dialogues, Socrates ' main goal is to achieve happiness, although friends and foes alike present him pathways that could lead to pleasure, but not true happiness. Moreover, in Crito, Socrates pursues happiness by obediently following the Athenian law, whereas, Crito tries to lure him into committing an unjust action so that he can obtain the pleasure of having a friend and keeping a good reputation and so that Socrates can still have the pleasure of life on earth1. One can know that happiness and pleasure are different due to the fact that happiness is a state of being eternally fulfilled, but pleasure provides a person only an immediate and short-lived image of fulfillment.

The main topic of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics is eudaimonia, i.e. happiness in the “living well” or “flourishing” sense (terms I will be using interchangeably). In this paper, I will present Aristotle’s view on the role of external goods and fortune for the achievement of happiness. I will argue that he considers them a prerequisite for virtue. Their contribution to happiness is indirect, via the way they affect how we can engage in rational activity according to the relevant virtues. I will then object that this view threatens to make his overall account of happiness incoherent. Fortunately, there is a way to reconcile the apparent tensions, in book III.

Human actions are believed to be coordinated, and not just chaotic and isolated. These actions build “links” of meaning and telos. Basic activities join into other activities to achieve higher order and higher end of happiness. As previously stated humans aim to achieve a good life, or happiness. He believes that happiness is achieved through a life full of virtue as well as the expansion of reason and the ability of greater wisdom. This is why we take various actions, to ensure enough outer goods to obtain health, leisure time and the ability to have virtue in our lifespan. Furthermore, another point Aristotle emphasizes, is that moral virtue is located somewhere between extremes and deficiency. That’s where the Greek saying “παν μετρον αριστον” comes from, meaning everything is good but don’t over or under do it. Keep everything in moderation, except virtue. Aristotle believes that no human ‘will’ is bad, if it can be controlled by reasoning based on moral principles. There is one way to acquire moral virtue, and this way is a combination of knowledge, adaptation and self-discipline (Falcon, 2015,

Throughout the history, there have been heated discussions on what constitutes a good life. Philosophers have given different annotations on the meaning of good life based on their beliefs, perspectives or even scientific-based evidences. Some view a good life as an accumulation of material goods that brings “large amount” of pleasure to oneself. On the other hand, Mencius and Aristotle advocate good life as possessing of pleasure that incorporates ethical values and they believe that by doing so one will experience enduring happiness. There is no ultimate right or wrong for these interpretations since this is not a factual question. Therefore, rather than giving an accurate definition of a good life, this essay will focus on expressing my

Aristotle purposes that happiness is the chief good. It makes since if we think about it. Happiness is desirable, I can’t use happiness to achieve any

Furthermore, Aristotle argues that the possession of this particular good is the primary goal of human beings. Because of his discussion of multiple virtues, one can assume that Aristotle’s argument is that happiness is achieved by possessing the positive aspects of the virtues that he highlights. Furthermore, men in the possession of such virtues are able to increase and maintain their happiness through friendship. For example, Aristotle argues that happiness can be heightened through having numerous friends. Socrates supports his argument of the correlation between goodness and happiness by arguing that happiness is achieved through friendship, specifically friendships that consist of good men. Socrates stresses the importance of friendship by attributing it to a factor of

Many classical philosophers have given their voice to the nature of human life and what entails its climax. The very nature of human beings has been investigated, broadly, to establish a comprehensive understanding often pegged on morality. Yet, such thoughts have prompted diverse viewpoints with accompanying grounds or reasons. Happiness is an unending topic of discussion in philosophy. This paper explores the similarities and differences in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism to coin a position in whether or not happiness is the ultimate end that human society aspires to acquire. In a critique of both the works, the paper adopts the Aristotelian thought citing that actions of human aims to fulfill goodness, which arguably is the happiness, one that arises from virtues practiced out of habit.

In Aristotle’s view, virtue(arête) is defined as an essential factor to achieve happiness of an individual, while happiness(eudaimonia) is defined as an ultimate objective of human-being. Aristotle insisted that the order of priority may decide whether one’s goal should be considered as a means or the goal itself. In other word, a goal with lower priority can be a method to achieve a goal with higher priority. In Aristotle’s viewpoint, happiness means the supreme good among other virtues, being the ultimate goal that human-beings pursue. Hence happiness cannot be an optional

At the end of everyone’s lives, the goal appears to be about attaining happiness. Describing how to obtain happiness has been an issue that was debated in the past but is still talked about now . In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle expands on his view of happiness and he focuses particularly on how reason helps recognize and pursue what will lead to happiness and the good life. I feel that Aristotle’s philosophies on happiness are important works within the field of philosophy and he considered one of the………of it . In this paper, I will explore Aristotle’s beliefs regarding happiness then compare and contrast them to those of Martin Seligman.

For Aristotle, happiness is the end and purpose of human existence. To pursue happiness is to go for telos. Happiness is neither pleasure nor virtue, but an exercise of virtue. Happiness cannot be achieved until the end of one’s life. Hence, it is a goal not a temporary state. The pursuit of happiness has been equated with the exercise of virtue, and virtue is to moral character. I suggest the emphasiz-ation of the pursuit of happiness as an obligation of man since Filipinos are easily motivated with the use of consequences, because the only way to achieve happiness is to act with virtue, they will act morally otherwise, they will die without achieving happiness which is the ultimate goal in the life of a human person. The pursuit of happiness will push the Filipino people towards virtue. For instance, Binay wants to be the DILG cabinet secretary in order for his name to be known all over the Philippines in preparation in the incoming 2016 election. However, the purpose of Binay to run in position is to steal the money of the country, and we all know that stealing money from the Filipino people will lead to various problems such as poverty and hunger which may result to death. Based on Aristole’s, this is against the telos. Binay is not exercising virtue. If only the pursuit of happiness is introduced to Binay, there is a great possibilty that he will

In this essay, I will be discussing Aristotle’s conception of the “good life” which he outlined in the Nicomachean Ethics. As we will see, the “good life” for man according to Aristotle is one where we perform the particular activity which is distinctly ours and guides us towards eudaimonia – sometimes translated as ‘happiness’ or ‘well-being’. He shows us how the other conflicting depictions of the ‘good life’ are misguided, and how we should aim for a life of reason. First, however, I will discuss briefly what Aristotle meant by the term ‘good’ and then move on to how he arrived at the conclusion on human happiness.