For aristotle how do mankind achieve happiness

Ackrill, J. Aristotle the Philosopher. Oxford: Oxford University Press. A comprehensive introduction to Aristotle. Adler, Mortimer Aristotle for Everybody. New York: Macmillan.

A popular exposition for the general reader. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics , ed. Hugh Treddenick. London: Penguin. Aristotle, Politics , ed. Trevor Saunders. Aristotle situates ethics within the discussion of the best constitution. A History of Greek Philosophy, Vol. Cambridge University Press. One of the standard classics of the history of Greek philosophy.

Hughes, Gerald J. Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Aristotle on Ethics. London: Routledge. Ross, Sir David Aristotle 6th ed.

Skip to content Happiness is the meaning and purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence. Aristotle: A Little Background. Happiness as the Ultimate Purpose of Human Existence. In order to explain human happiness, Aristotle draws on a view of nature he derived from his biological investigations. If we look at nature, we notice that there are four different kinds of things that exist in the world, each one defined by a different purpose: Mineral: rocks, metals and other lifeless things.

The only goal which these things seek is to come to a rest. They are "beyond stupid" since they are inanimate objects with no soul Vegetative: plants and other wildlife. Here we see a new kind of thing emerge,something which is alive.

Because plants seek nourishment and growth, they have souls and can be even said to be satisfied when they attain these goals Animal: all the creatures we study as belonging to the animal kingdom. Here we see a higher level of life emerge: animals seek pleasure and reproduction, and we can talk about a happy or sad dog, for example, to the extent that they are healthy and lead a pleasant life Human: what is it that makes human beings different from the rest of the animal kingdom?

Aristotle answers: Reason. Only humans are capable of acting according to principles, and in so doing taking responsibility for their choices. We can blame Johnny for stealing the candy since he knows it is wrong, but we wouldn't blame an animal since it doesn't know any better.

It seems that our unique function is to reason: by reasoning things out we attain our ends, solve our problems, and hence live a life that is qualitatively different in kind from plants or animals. The good for a human is different from the good for an animal because we have different capacities or potentialities.

We have a rational capacity and the exercising of this capacity is thus the perfecting of our natures as human beings. For this reason, pleasure alone cannot constitute human happiness, for pleasure is what animals seek and human beings have higher capacities than animals. The goal is not to annihilate our physical urges, however, but rather to channel them in ways that are appropriate to our natures as rational animals.

The Pursuit of Happiness as the Exercise of Virtue. Nicomachean Ethics, b Aristotle - His View On Friendship.

In conclusion, according to Aristotle, what is happiness? Happiness is the ultimate end and purpose of human existence Happiness is not pleasure, nor is it virtue. It is the exercise of virtue. Happiness cannot be achieved until the end of one's life. Hence it is a goal and not a temporary state.

Happiness is the perfection of human nature. Since man is a rational animal, human happiness depends on the exercise of his reason. Happiness depends on acquiring a moral character, where one displays the virtues of courage, generosity, justice, friendship, and citizenship in one's life. These virtues involve striking a balance or "mean" between an excess and a deficiency.

Aristotle thinks it obvious that our proper function consists in reasoning and in acting in accord with reason. This is the heart of the doctrine of virtue, both moral and intellectual.

So on this line of reasoning we are led to the conclusion that the possession and exercise of moral and intellectual virtue is the essential element in our living well.

A second approach is to survey the goods which we find ourself desiring, since happiness presumably consists in the attainment of some good or set of goods such that to have them in the right way is to be living well. One division of goods is into i external goods wealth, fame, honor, power, friends , ii goods of the body life, health, good looks, physical strength, athletic ability, dexterity, etc. The problem then is to delineate the ways in which such goods are related to happiness.

Aristotle's view is that a certain goods e. The virtuous person alone can attain happiness and the virtuous person can never be miserable in the deepest sense, even in the face of misfortune which keeps him from being happy or blessed. So happiness combines an element over which we have greater control virtue with elements over which we have lesser control health, wealth, friends, etc.

There is a lot of room for discussion here. For instance, how much is luck or fortune involved in our attainment of virtue? Aristotle has some things to say about this in Book 3, chap. Also, to what degree is a unity of life and of life-projects necessary for happiness?

Alternatively, how far can a happy person go in allowing a single--perhaps complex--end to be predominate in his life? What kind of balance is necessary in one's life-projects? Can a happy life eschew the pursuit of some goods in order to engage in the single-minded pursuit of other goods?

These last few questions suggest that it might be helpful to look at lives presented to us by history, experience, and literature.

There are indeed some qualifications to the universal capacity for pursuing happiness. It is harder to achieve happiness. But not impossible. You do not need material possessions or physical strength or beauty to start exercising your mind in company with Aristotle, since the way of life he advocates concerns a moral and psychological excellence rather than one that lies in material possessions or bodily splendour.

There are, he acknowledges, even more difficult obstacles: having children or friends who are completely depraved is one such obstacle. Another — which Aristotle saves until last and elsewhere implies is the most difficult problem any human can ever face — is the loss of fine friends in whom you have invested effort, or especially the loss of children, through death.

Yet, potentially, even people poorly endowed by nature or who have experienced terrible bereavements can live a good life. Aristotle insists that individuals who want to treat others fairly need to love themselves. Friendships are important to the Aristotelian, and adopting virtue ethics need not disrupt your life. We might be able to cope alone, but why would we ever choose isolation? Nor is it ever too late: you can decide to retrain yourself morally at any point in your life.

Most appealing of all, Aristotle insists that individuals who want to treat others fairly need to love themselves. There is no room for self-hatred, self-flagellation or self-deprivation in his humane system.

Aristotle saw long before Sigmund Freud that our biological instincts are natural rather than morally despicable. This makes his ethics compatible with modern psychoanalysis. An innovative Aristotelian idea is that supposedly reprehensible emotions — even anger and vengefulness — are indispensable to a healthy psyche. Sexual desire, since humans are animals, is excellent in proportion. Either excessive or insufficient sexual appetite is conducive to unhappiness. Anger is also essential to a flourishing personality.

Yet anger in excess or with the wrong people is a vice. There are no strict doctrines. Intention is always a crucial gauge of right behaviour: he writes penetratingly about the problems that arise when intended altruistic ends require immoral means.

But every ethical situation is different. Aristotle thought that general principles are important, but without taking into account the specific circumstances, especially intention, general principles can mislead. This is why he distrusted fixed penalties. Each dilemma requires detailed engagement with the nuts and bolts of its particulars. When it comes to ethics, the devil really can be in the detail. Politically speaking, a basic education in Aristotelianism could benefit humanity as a whole.

Aristotle is positive about democracy, with which he finds fewer faults than other constitutions. Unlike his elitist tutor Plato, who was skeptical about the intelligence of the lower classes, Aristotle believed that the greatest experts on any given topic eg zoology, of which he is the acknowledged founding father are likely to be those who have accumulated experience of that topic eg farmers, bird-catchers, shepherds and fishermen , however low their social status; scholarship must be informed by what they say.

A ristotle was the first philosopher to make explicit the distinction between doing wrong by omission and by commission. Not doing something when it is right to do it can have just as bad effects as a misdemeanour. This vital ethical principle has ramifications for the way in which we assess public figures. We do ask whether politicians have ever slipped up. But how often do we ask what they have not done with their power and influence to improve societal wellbeing?

We do not ask enough what politicians, business leaders, presidents of universities and funding councils have failed to do, the initiatives that they have never launched, thus abnegating the duties of leadership.

Aristotle was also clear that rich people who do not use a significant proportion of their wealth to help others are unhappy because they are not acting according to the virtuous mean between fiscal irresponsibility and financial meanness. But they are also guilty of injustice by omission. Aristotle is a utopian. Aristotle envisages a futuristic world in which technological advances would render human labour unnecessary. It is almost as if he anticipated modern developments in artificial intelligence.

You can be a capitalist or socialist, a businesswoman or a charity worker, vote for almost any political party, and still be a consistent Aristotelian. However, Aristotelian capitalists need to find indigence among their fellow citizens intolerable.

Yet Aristotelian socialists need to acknowledge that extending compulsory public ownership to domestic accommodation does not work.

People look after things because they enjoy the sense of private ownership, and because the things have value for them; both these qualities are diluted if shared with others.