Essay on Happiness in Aristotle’s work: The Nicomachean Ethics

Although, as Aristotle believes, everything we do in our life leads to some good, he makes it clear that some goods are subordinate to others, and that the greatest good is happiness. He believes that the knowledge of this good carries weight for our way of life, and makes us better able, like archers who have a target to aim at, to hit the right mark (Aristotle 2). To possess the ability to achieve this ultimate end; however, we must first have some sort of understanding as to what happiness is. The definition of happiness typically varies from person to person, some think it’s pleasure or something found in someone you love, others believe it lies in wealth and success, but Aristotle defines it as

He divides virtue into two categories: virtue of thought and virtue of character. First category can be obtained from teaching, and it requires time and experience. Second category comes as a result of habituation, since virtues of character “arises in us neither by nature nor against nature. Rather, we are by nature able to acquire them, and we are completed through habit.” (p.18) In order to better illustrate it, Aristotle compares virtues with crafts. The same way we learn crafts, by producing the same product and mastering the technique, similarly we can perform and mastering our virtues, by doing the right things, “we become just by doing just actions, temperate by doing temperate actions, brave by doing brave actions.” (p.19) Therefore if we want to achieve a good result, we must practice good actions. Aristotle also stresses that it is important to start doing the right actions from the very young age, because developing of a character can take long time, and the earlier we begin, the better result we can get. Pleasure and pain are essential parts of virtue of character. Pleasure and pain impact our actions, it can help to estimate them, it also might be the cause of our behaviour, and if we are using pleasure and pain properly, it can increase our

Throughout this Book 1, the discussion digresses multiple times to explore the method by which the topic will be examined. Realising that concepts such as happiness are subjective, he establishes in the third Chapter that the fruits of the discussion will be satisfactory so long as it holds true universally. He also considers in Chapter four whether the discussion should originate from the principles, or from our experiences, and suggests that we should being from things known and immediate to us, which seems to be a logical choice as the discussions as a whole focus on what a man should do in order to act according to virtue in order to become good and attain happiness. In addition, the sixth Chapter is devoted to criticism of the theory of Forms. Since good can exist in so many different ways, but are undoubtedly good, Aristotle argues that there is no common idea governing it. He also denies the existence of separate Forms that are merely mimicked by what we perceive, since a thing and the Thing Itself has the same

John Stuart Mill and Aristotle both address the idea of happiness as the goal of human life. They explain that all human action is at the foundation of their moral theories. Mill addresses the Greatest Happiness Principle, which is the greatest amount of pleasure to the least amount of pain. Similarly, Aristotle addresses happiness through the idea of eudaimonia and human flourishing. According to Aristotle, eudaimonia is happiness, it is the state of contemplation that individuals are in when they have reached actualized happiness. Also referred to as happiness or human flourishing, it is the ultimate goal of human beings. Happiness is “living well and acting well.” He explains that once general happiness becomes recognized as the moral standard, natural sentiment will nurture feelings that promote utilitarianism. According to Aristotle, happiness is a state of being. Both Mill and Aristotle agree that in order to attain true happiness, human beings must engage in activities that are distinct to humans and that make them happy. Aristotle’s idea of eudaimonia and human flourishing is a more compelling argument than Mill’s for happiness and the final end because Aristotle explains that the virtues bring human beings to happiness.

Aristotle argues, however, that to reach this final state of happiness, a person must live in accordance with appropriate virtues, so happiness cannot be found in vulgar and political lives but only in a contemplative life. He explains this idea by isolating humans to their special roles. Just like objects have specific functions (i.e. knives are used to cut things), “for all things that have a function or activity, the good and the “well” is thought to reside in the function, so would it seem to be for man, if he has a function.” Aristotle claims that humans, too, have a specific function: to exercise rational thought, which is a uniquely human quality. Thus, people are only able to achieve their final state of happiness through a habitual practice of areté or virtue, which is a person’s ability to actively contribute to society by using his or her individual capacity for reasoning. Only through this practice of excellence, then, can humans flourish to eudaimonia.

Aristotle defines happiness as an ultimate good, and is pursued by every individual, not because it is a means to an end to another state but rather for its sake. It is this qualification that makes a distinction between happiness and pleasure seeking (LaFollette, 370).

Happiness is an absolute state of mind, where a person can realize the ultimate contentment in their life regardless of circumstances. Happiness is the end of every desire, after which nothing is desirable. Socrates believes that happiness is a concept of morality and the stable state of ones’ mind, which is non-dependable on the material goods, resources and circumstances. Whereas Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics, states that “happiness depends on our self”, where both the material satisfaction and internal satisfaction is required to relish the human life in a happy way. Both philosophers are stressed upon the ultimate satisfaction of life and ‘supreme goods’. The only major difference between the Socrates and Aristotle’s definitions

The goal of the ethical life, according to Aristotle, is good. All human activity is directed toward

Both John Stuart Mill and Aristotle propose ethical theories concerning the idea of happiness. Mill grounds his theory of happiness in the idea of conduct, asking the question, “what is the best action for humans to perform?”. Aristotle bases his theory of happiness on the idea of character, asking the question, “what is the best thing for individual human beings?”. We will explore the propositions both philosophers have contributed to modern society by means of breaking down their premises for ethics and what constitutes happiness. Once examining Mill’s utilitarianism, we will see that Aristotle suggests the most accurate definition of happiness.

Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics presents this idea: finding the best way to achieve good, which is happiness, or euphoria. To achieve that, a person should find peace with where they are, find joy in their actions, and a person can do that through contemplation and reasoning. Aristotle concluded that, in Book VII of Nicomachean Ethics, just as things have an intent for which they are created, or a task that the thing is known to execute, human beings must also have an end purpose. Humans have distinct necessities and rely on certain people. For example, humans rely on a carpenter and a leather worker because both work toward crafting and using shaping techniques to achieve certain geometric shapes, as mentioned by Aristotle: “Then do the carpenter and the leather worker have their functions and actions, but has a human being no function?

There are many theories surrounding happiness, and the pursuit of happiness. Some believe that an external force must be present to bring about happiness, while others argue that happiness is individualized, and is completely up to a person's internal mindset of whether he or she is able to achieve and maintain happiness. Aristotle, a significant ancient Greek philosopher, believes that happiness requires an action. He affirms that there are many factors that play into someone's happiness; including materialistic things, which help support this state of being. His claim is that happiness is a holistic approach to life and must be achieved by living virtuously with moral character. Aristotle also indicates that happiness is not a moment in time, but rather a journey of exploration by way of living harmoniously, through a pursuit of achieving life’s goals and desires. He adds that a life of happiness is driven by virtue and emotions, which all play a role in achieving optimum happiness.

From the beginning of their evolution, human beings have been searching for the meaning of happiness. While many may see this to be an inconsequential question, others have devoted entire lives to the search for happiness. One such person who devoted a great deal of thought to the question of man's happiness was the famous ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle. In his book The Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle discussed the meaning of happiness and what it meant to live a good life. He asserted that the devise which has been invented to create what is good for man is called "politics;" and it "uses the rest of the sciences"¦so that this end must be the good for man." (Aristotle, I, ii) Aristotle also identified four general means by which people live their lives in order to gain happiness, but stated that only one was a means by which a person could actually attain it. According to Aristotle, it was not political power, wealth, or worldly pleasures by which a person could achieve real happiness, it was living a contemplative life.

Aristotle begins his exploration into the most outstanding life by attempting to figure what the highest possible good achievable is for human beings. He comes to the conclusion that most people will agree that happiness is the most sought after good. Happiness is self-sufficient and is the complete end of things pursued. However, they cannot seem to agree how to achieve happiness and what happiness is. In order to figure out what happiness is, Aristotle must evaluate the true function of human beings. This true function, as seen by Aristotle, is the key to achieving happiness. Aristotle describes happiness by saying:

In the opening lines of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle states, “Every craft and every line of inquiry, and likewise every action and decision, seems to seek some good; and that is why some people were right to describe the good at what everything seeks.” Aristotle often wrote about happiness, but so did Epicurus. In a broad sense, Aristotle and Epicurus touched on similar points when discussing happiness. They both believed that happiness is the ultimate goal in life, and that all human measures are taken to reach that goal. While Aristotle and Epicurus’ theories are similar in notion, a closer look proves they are different in many ways. In this paper, we will discuss the differences between Epicurus and Aristotle in their theories on happiness, and expand on some drawbacks of both arguments. Through discussing the drawbacks with both theories, we will also be determining which theory is more logical when determining how to live a happy life.

Aristotle is one of the greatest thinkers in the history of western philosophy, and is most notably known for expressing his view of happiness in Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle develops a theory of how to live the good life and reach eudaimonia (happiness). Eudaimonia has been translated into, living a happy and virtuous life. Aristotle’s definition of the good life as the happy life, consist of balancing virtues (arête), the mean, external goods, political science, and voluntary action.