Aristotle and Happiness
This is meant to provoke thought — to think about things you may not have thought about before. It is written to be short and concise and intentionally left with some ambiguity. The following article is in response to Aristotle’s lecture which has been compiled into Book 1 of Nicomachean Ethics.
Throughout Book 1, Aristotle explores why happiness may be the end-in-itself that gives purpose or reason to any product or activity that is good because it is in the good things that lead to or bring about happiness. Repeatedly, he exemplifies what all may consist in happiness. He points out virtue, pleasure, self-sufficiency, and actions which lead to products that bring about any of these aforementioned things. He attempts to find what distinguishable attribute denotes human happiness from anything else and seems to settle on reason though he stresses the importance of the “activity of the soul in accordance with virtue” (Arist. EN I.7, 1098a, trans. Crisp).
I feel as though his conclusions do not take into full account the real questions at hand, however; that is, his conclusions disregard the curious nature of why these things bring happiness. Aristotle assumes that the pairing of action and virtue are the necessary ingredients for a fulfilled life of happiness and that this is really all that matters. But, what is it about the virtues and the things that bring human beings pleasure that makes them happy?
I will, however, concede the reasonability of Aristotle’s approach as he says, “presumably we have to begin from things known by us” (Arist. EN I.4, 1095b, trans. Crisp). Following Aristotle’s analysis, we can understand how the activities that are in accordance with virtue and their byproducts make for happiness. After all, being human, we experience these things and can attest to their validity. Agreeably, it is also difficult to think of something attainable that is beyond and better than happiness (at least how it is portrayed here).
He makes the point that certain actions are good because the end is good. He writes, “What then is the good in each case? Surely it is that for the sake of which other things are done? In medicine it is health, in military science, victory, in housebuilding, a house, and in other cases something else; in every action and rational choice the end is the good, since it is for the sake of the end that everyone does everything else” (Arist. EN I.7, 1097a, trans. Crisp). This is all fine and correct, in my view. But were it not for these things being good, the action taken to get there would not be good, but fruitless. The point he makes further down the page sums up the good in each instance; he writes, “But the chief good manifestly is something complete.” This raises the question, then, is it not the completeness of every individual that is best? As Aristotle says, happiness is something that is complete because it is always chosen for itself and “never for the sake of anything else.” But, just as a house, a victory, and health are components that contribute to happiness, should not happiness be just one contributor to human completeness?
My point is that happiness and the things that increase it or make for it can be explored and discovered in order that people may have an easier time finding it, but it would be a grave mistake to think this is all that is necessary. Other questions must be analyzed like what it is about particular virtues and pleasures that cause happiness among humans. Is there a pattern and what are the reasons for it? Additionally, why should happiness be the only end-in-itself? If it is, would this not justify, in some sense, selfishness — which is a vice?
My final note is in reference to Aristotle’s mention of a good that makes everything else good: “Certain thinkers used to believe that beyond these many good things there is something else good in itself, which makes all these good things good. Examining all the views offered would presumably be rather a waste of time…” (Arist. EN I.4, 1095a, trans. Crisp). I disagree. I think it is important to recognize one characteristic that makes good things good: there cannot be a good thing were it not for something beyond that thing to enjoy it in some fashion. A finished house cannot be good unless someone lives in it. A military victory cannot be good if there are no citizens to protect. Medicine cannot be good if there is no one to cure. And the examples continue. All of these things, which are completed, are good because they serve a purpose beyond themselves and it is that which makes them good. It should then be worth exploring the possibility that human life can only be good if there is purpose which lies outside of humanity.
