I Aristotle argues that the goal of all deliberation, action and concern should be to achieve happiness and that

happiness consists in a life filled with activity in accord with virtue. Taking due account of his vision of humanity and the cosmos, do you find him persuasive? Why or why not? The Nicomachean Ethics are considered by many to be the most brilliant set of lecture notes ever written.1 They present Aristotles attempt to define and qualify what it is that makes up the best possible human life and how this can be achieved. He argues that through the correct execution of virtuous activity, a state of rounded happiness, known as Eudaimonia, can be reached. In this essay I will look to discuss the implications of Aristotles assertion. In an attempt to gauge the persuasiveness of his argument, within the confines of the premise he presents. Although Aristotle was a prolific scholar over a vast array of topics, in order to avoid superficiality I will confine my study to the Nicomachean Ethics. The rich density of the text as well as Aristotles own view that ethics is a relatively autonomous discipline, with its own principles and procedures 2, should ensure my investigation is not limited. Drawing out specific examples from various strains of Aristotles argument, I look to gain clarity on the incredibly complex but unceasingly interesting subject of Eudaimonia and the ultimate human happiness.

Before embarking on any in depth analysis of Aristotles work, it is important to first deconstruct some of the key terms he uses, as they will be the foundation stones for much of his argument. Firstly the concept of Eudaimonia, although it can roughly be translated to happiness, this is too narrow an

1Macintyre 1981:138 2Pakaluk 2005:22

II interpretation as it suggests the idea of pleasure or a simplistic satisfaction3. The original meaning of the word held more of a notion of an all-encompassing fulfilment, an almost god-like state of achievement in being. It is the esoteric goal at which all human life should strive. It pertains ultimacy4, self-sufficiency5 and preferability6. The ideas that; it is the end goal for which we seek everything else, it is sought for nothing else. It implies no further need, and when compared to any other good it is always preferable. Halliwell describes it as the state of being well and doing well in being well7. According to Aristotle, it is through the exertion of virtuous activity that Eudaimonia can be reached. The contemporary English definition of virtue similarly does not hold enough depth as its Greek counterpart. Rather then simply ascribing someones positive character traits such as intelligence or courage. Aristotles definition of virtue expresses the idea of a fitness to work8 or an excellence at fulfilling a determined function.9 It is the idea of a capacity to achieve, through the possession of, and application of, specific traits. Thus animals and inanimate objects contain virtues. For example, a knifes function is to cut; and via the virtue of being sharp, it is able to fulfil its function well. Similarly a man is able to achieve excellence through the proper and correct application of his virtues. In enacting a virtue well, you must judge to do the right thing, in the right place, at the right time, in the right way, for the right reasons10. Thus virtues are shown to be the characteristics which when

3Joachim 1951:28 4Ross 1980:1097a.25-34 5Ross 1980:1097b.6-16 6Ross 1980:1097b.16-20 7Halliwell 2008:139 8Joachim 1951:52 9Joachim 1951:49 10Macintyre 1981:110

III applied properly, allow a person to achieve Eudaimonia. They are the base elements of a virtuous character. I will now look to Aristotles views on the attainment of Eudaimonia and how they differed from contemporary views on achieving happiness.

After quite quickly asserting the hypothesis that all men generally agree that happiness is the chief aim of human life, Aristotle goes on to criticise popular belief of how this can be achieved. He states,

with regard to what happiness is they differ, and the many do not give the same account as the wise. For the former think it is some plain and obvious thing, like pleasure, wealth, or honour11

This is the first critical stage of Aristotles argument for his concept of Eudaimonia. He eliminates any rivalry views on how to achieve the ultimate happiness, leaving the stage clear for his own interpretation. I will examine the persuasiveness of his arguments before later looking at the alternative that he offers. Although applying specific examples and reasoning for each popular pursuit, Aristotle also uses a blanket explanation for discrediting them all each of these, pleasure, wealth and honour, are all achieved for the sake of something else, thus implying that none of them contain ultimacy. Furthermore, wealth is constrained by need whereas happiness is free and unburdened12. Honour is only achieved through those who bestow it and acts as a form of reassurance,

11Ross 1980:1095a.20-22 12Broadie 1991:25

IV something we can never own, unlike true happiness. Whilst the pursuit of pleasure, Aristotle degrades to a life fit for beasts, stating that most men are slavish in their tastes13 and ruled by their bodies rather then their minds. Aristotle is asserting that although these activities may indeed create forms of happiness, they are not the final and complete form of happiness - Eudaimonia. This he briefly states, is found in philosophical contemplation but does not venture into an explanation of this just yet, (thus for the time being neither will I). His technique of removing any potential opposition to his views is astute and allows him to embark on the rest of his analysis fairly freely. His initial argument is indeed plausible and persuasively put. It balances on the premise that there is an ultimate and final goal to which all things lead, (happiness). However, the majority of people are misguided as to how to achieve this in its fullest and superlative form (Eudaimonia). Therefore although the average plebeian may strive towards happiness, their misunderstanding of its finest nature will render achieving it almost impossible. Furthermore, although this may seem to suggest that they are not in fact pursuing Eudaimonia. Aristotle implies that although ignorant of it, by the inherent linear nature of desires and achievements, (all eventually leading to an ultimate goal) they are. Having laid down this initial argument, and convincingly followed it up using his own before mentioned criteria, Aristotle now goes on to his explanation for how the ultimate goal of Eudaimonia may be achieved - through the proper and correct enactment of virtuous behaviour. Before looking to this, I will briefly discuss an interesting implication of Aristotles belief that all human endeavours lead towards an ultimate goal and its effect on the persuasiveness of his argument.
13Ross 1980:1095b.20

As Aristotle argues that Eudaimonia is the ultimate end to which all human endeavours lead, this subtly implies that all human action in the long run, ends up being for personal gain. Thus implying that altruism cannot exist. Any explanation for an altruistic or selfless act would always boil down to selfinterest. For example, if someone were to give a gift to a friend or donate a large sum of money to charity, Aristotle would argue that this is actually just a form of acquisitiveness only enacted for the inevitable sense of wellbeing that it would create14. Although he provides some explanation through the analysis that the interests of oneself and ones true friends should be so similar that it should be impossible to discern between the two, this does not remove the implied impossibility of selfless generosity in a charitable sense. Aristotles argument that an act of generosity cannot be committed without a subsequent feeling of wellbeing is logically very strong. However many would argue that a charitable act can be committed for the sake of its self with the associated feelings merely a by-product. Although someone donating an organ to a stranger may receive a sense of wellbeing afterwards, it is highly unlikely that they would do so simply for their own benefit, the act itself is still primarily wholly altruistic (although this still does not discount Aristotles assertion that personal gain will always be received). This point is very useful in highlighting how Aristotles arguments, even when on a very controversial level, maintain their unyielding logical strength, almost faultless within the context of their own criteria.

14Pakaluk 2005:12

VI Having now asserted the premise that Eudaimonia is the ultimate goal of all human undertakings; Aristotle goes about a lengthy explanation of the nature of virtues and their role in achieving the ultimate good. The relationship between the two is far from simplistic. Primarily Aristotle believes that, the exercise of the virtues is a necessary and exclusive path to achieving Eudaimonia. He presents three very interdependent conditions for acting virtuously; one must have practical knowledge, a virtuous act must be chosen for its own sake and must be chosen with a firm character for the right reasons. I will now look to dissect these criteria in an attempt to shed light on the relationship between virtue and Eudaimonia.

Aristotle argues that to be truly virtuous is not a choice, as Macintyre explains, Virtues are dispositions not only to act in particular ways, but also to feel in particular ways15. Acting virtuously is shown to be a state of being, rather then simply a matter of choices or actions. You must be predisposed to acting accordingly in any given situation and must choose the virtuous acts for themselves alone. For example, you can do the right things for the wrong reasons, Cowardice can be someones reason for not committing murder; vanity and boastfulness can on occasion lead someone to tell the truth 16. This idea of predisposed intention or a moral choice is known as prohairesis. Aristotle believes this innate inclination to act in the correct way is achieved through training and honing of the virtues, as he states we must become just by doing

15Macintyre 1981:140 16Macintyre 1981:142

VII just acts, and temperate by doing temperate acts17, however he also believes it is attained in part through a correct upbringing ensuring you have, acquired good habits of action, (and) have good instinctive beliefs of what is good and bad18. Thus virtue is shown to be somewhat exclusive. Someone of an immoral upbringing will not have the natural inclination towards virtuous behaviour available to them which is innately necessary for achieving a full state of virtuous being. Although it is possible to acquire virtues and hone them, there must still be a predisposition towards virtuous behaviour for this to be possible. In other words, some people are simply not naturally virtuous and will thus never achieve a fully developed state of virtuous being. Aristotle takes this idea one step further, arguing that virtues are not only subjective to those of the correct and proper upbringing, but also unobtainable to slaves or foreigners. Although this may appear bias, Aristotle is simply highlighting that Eudaimonia is not easily achieved or universally available. He is outlining that primary characteristics of excellence are necessary and must be trained and perfected in order to achieve a fully developed state of overall excellence. In which one is, (to reiterate Macintyres point) predisposed to judge to do the right thing, in the right place, at the right time, in the right way, for the right reasons19. Again his argument is shown to maintain its strength. Although very technical, the interdependent nature of his analysis only furthers the validity of his words. Creating an extremely powerful and persuasive, self-sufficient thesis.

17Ross 1980:1105a.17-18 18Joachim 1951:26 19Macintyre 1981:110

VIII It is not until the last book of the Nicomachean Ethics after having discussed and argued at length the theory of achieving Eudaimonia through virtuous activity, that Aristotle finally lays his cards on the table and states that the activity of philosophical contemplation is the greatest act a man can engage in on the path to the ultimate end. Until now Aristotle has remained ambiguous, at times suggesting that one should collect and perfect as many virtues as possible whilst at other times suggesting that there is one virtue that supersedes all else. Having prepared the premise for his argument in excellent detail, he now finishes with one last definitive exclamation. Aristotle believes that everything in the universe has a function, ergon and an ultimate end goal, telos. For instance a knife has a function and via its virtues, for example sharpness, it is able to achieve its telos or end goal, of cutting well.20 Similarly then, humans must have a function and through their virtues they can achieve their telos. Aristotle argues that in order for a human to achieve greatness in their function, they must do what they do best as best as they can21. And this he asserts is a life of action involving reason. Thus the greatest human life is achieved through the exercise of philosophical contemplation. Aristotle goes on to explain and expands upon this idea. He argues that,

if the human mind is godlike, in comparison with the human being as a whole, so also is the way of life corresponding to that part godlike, in comparison with a merely human way of life.22

20Pakaluk 2005:6 21Pakaluk 2005:58 22Ross 1980:1177b.30-31

IX Thus a life spent in the pursuit of philosophical contemplation is shown to be the most excellent way for a human to exist. Aristotle believed in living gods and even thought that they favoured those who exercised the virtues well 23, and were thus more godly in their being. He argues that although it is not possible to spend all of the time in this activity, it should be the priority. There is no great degree of wealth required and it naturally endorses a life of austerity in accordance with the virtues24. Aristotle admits however that not everybody can achieve the academic heights necessary for philosophical contemplation and the understanding of astrophysics that it prerequisites. And thus provides an alternative through the frequently before-mentioned life of excellence in civic activity. This is perhaps Aristotles weakest point in his argument, after discussing at length all the different virtues and remaining ambiguous as to whether there is a superlative, he suddenly announces that it is in fact philosophical contemplation. The assertion appears a little self-indulgent although he of course provides a plethora of explanations for his decision; it is not perhaps as well grounded as the rest of his argument.

Throughout the Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle has been shown to present his arguments clearly and then follow them through with a systematic and extremely thorough explanation backed up by an abundance of examples. The unique lecture note style of the Ethics makes them all the more personal and interesting as a mode of philosophical argument, as Macintyre states, at times

23Ross 1980:1179a25-28 24Pakaluk 2005:325

X we can almost hear in them (the Ethics) the tone of Aristotles voice25. The persuasiveness of his argument is undeniable. He sets forth the criteria that through the correct circumstantial application and exertion of virtuous behaviour and activity, the ultimate goal of Eudaimonia can be achieved and he argues his point ruthlessly. Each factor is shown to co-support the overall argument, creating a rounded and airtight thesis completely contained within itself. The only fault therefore can come through a disagreement with his premise, which is not the topic of his discussion. The manner of Aristotles communication is impeccable in its nature. Although ambiguous at times and often very confusing, the vast and overwhelming nature of the subject matter makes this inevitably. Aristotles method of argument as qualified by his own presuppositions is wonderfully persuasive, even if, you do not agree with the basic premise on which it stands.

25Macintyre 1981:138

XI Bibliography Broadie S. (1991) Ethics with Aristotle. Oxford Halliwell S. (2008) Greek Laughter. Cambridge Joachim H. (1951) The Nicomachean Ethics. Oxford Lear J. (1988) Aristotle the Desire to Understand. Cambridge Macintyre A. (1981) After Virtue. London Pakaluk M. (2005) Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics an Introduction. Cambridge Taylor CW. (2006) Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics books II-IV. Oxford