Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, Book 1
Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim. — Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics/1.
Nicomachean Ethics is undoubtedly Aristotle's most profound teleological work: the science of the good for human life, that which is the goal or end at which all our actions aim. It is the canonical text of virtue ethics and much of what is published today makes extensive references to the work of Aristotle either as a foundation or a foil.
We don't do things for no reason. We have our motivations, whatever these motivations may be. We don't bumble through life arbitrarily with no hopes or desires. Instead, we seek goods instrumental to some other goods, like steps on a ladder. This implies the existence of some final good; some good that we desire for its own sake, with everything else being desired for the sake of this. If such a good did not exist, we would be victims of some infinite causality, seeking instrumental goods would be an end in itself. This is a manifest absurdity. Clearly, then, there must be a chief, final good.
Everyone pretty much agrees that this ultimate good is happiness — serotonin, oxytocin, dopamine, endorphins, call it whatever you'd like. The problem is, not everyone agrees on what happiness is or how to get it. The many do not give the same account as the wise. The general account of happiness is that it remains some plain, obvious thing like pleasure, honor, or wealth. But often the same man identifies it with different things — pleasures conflict all the time. The hungry man and the sick man will disagree on what happiness means. This is certainly not the right answer.
You could equally contest that happiness lies in honor and we should seek that. But honor is instrumental to virtue and to value honor means to value virtue more; honor is only an incidental achievement. This remains somewhat incomplete since the possession of honor does not afford one a privileged reference frame; honor is sweet but it cannot be the end at which all our actions aim.
Now, the Platonic resolution is to concede and admit that we are after the Form of the Good and not chief goods themselves, whatever that means. The definition of the Good, as Plato saw it, is a perfect, eternal, and changeless Form, existing outside space and time. Aristotle argues Form of the Good does not apply to the physical reality for Plato leaves "goodness" unassigned to anything in the existing world. Since Plato's idea does not explain human behavior nor arises from it, we do not have any reason to believe that such a form exists and thereby its purpose is irrelevant to human ethics.
Plato, however, did have a defense. Through Socrates in The Republic, Plato acknowledges the Form of the Good is an elusive concept that should be appreciated as a hypothesis, rather than criticized for its weaknesses. The only alternative to accepting a hypothesis is to refute all its propositions, which is counterproductive to the process of contemplation.
If good can be attributed to specific virtues or just the property of being virtuous, then it must be something common we can account for in different experiences, just as how white characterizes both snow and paper and heat characterizes both the desert and the summer. But of honor, wisdom, and pleasure, just in respect of their goodness, the accounts are distinct and diverse. We can then firmly conclude that the Form is not very productive to our exploration of the good.
Aristotle clarifies that when we say final good, we mean it without qualification; that which is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else. So, happiness isn't some other thing we need to identify and seek — it's the reason we do things. It's certainly not a good instrumental to some other greater good. Nobody wants to be happy because being happy makes them feel anything other than, well, happiness. It's the aim of all our activities, we're always seeking it, and it's self-sufficient. Here, we mean, as Aristotle does, self-sufficiency in the sense that "which when isolated makes life desirable and lacking in nothing". Happiness is always the final good. That conversation is short. "Why do you want to be happy?" "Because… it's happiness, genius."
But let's entertain a contrarian perspective and say happiness isn't the final good; that there is something else, something more "final" than happiness. Aristotle says that for all things that have a function or activity, the good is thought to reside in the function. So, in our Nicomachean efforts, this would require us to first ascertain the function of man. Everything has a purpose, and good things accomplish their purpose well. A good writer writes well and a good singer sings well. Anybody that has ever been good at any other thing has characteristics that allow them to pursue their function "well". Then, we must ask what makes a good human. Aristotle proposes that what sets us apart in our sentience is our soul: our ability to recognize virtue.
What makes people happy? Being good at what they're supposed to be good at. When has an A on a test ever disappointed you? When has being the best at something ever been a miserable experience? And when has doing something well made you unhappy? Aristotle attests that our highest purpose is virtue and to be happy, we have to perform this function well.
Human good turns out to be activity of soul in accordance with virtue.
— Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics/11.
"But Aristotle, virtue is hard. It doesn't make me happy to be virtuous. Why do you say that? What's virtue anyway?" Well, anything worth doing is difficult, and being the best at something is always hard. Virtue is an acquired habit of excellence. Nobody has the privilege to just sit around and be happy because they deem themselves virtuous. It's your word against mine; have fun arguing that in court. You want to win the Olympics? You have to work for it. The Oscars? Work for it. A Nobel Prize? Work. Any mark of excellence in one's function requires sweating it out and putting in the hours. How do we distinguish the best from the second best? How do we know the fastest and the strongest? It's the hours they've put in.
And as in the Olympic Games it is not the most beautiful and the strongest that are crowned but those who compete, so those who act win, and rightly win, the noble and good things in life — Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics/13.
At the heart of the Nicomachean Ethics is the question about what it means to be an excellent human being — what it means to perform the function of a human well. We know what it means to be a good writer, a good scientist, and a good driver, but what about a good human? Aristotle argues that a good human is one who is virtuous, which is a person who knows the good, wants the good, and acts for the good. Now you may want to attack the Aristotelian approach for championing the subjectivity of "good" but let's be real here, more often than not, we know what's good. There's always an innate understanding of what we're doing. There is some morality in us. This defines our humanity. This is a good rule of thumb for most of life. We don't need to get down into the specifics of what being virtuous means; we know what it does.
Virtue is difficult. A virtuous man enjoys his virtue and virtue has to be learned but it cannot be taught. For what good is a virtuous life if it conflicts with the ordained pleasures of life? It's not a switch you flip and oh, now I'm virtuous so I must be happy. Pleasure is a state of soul, and to each man that which he is said to be a lover of is pleasant; a horse is pleasant to the lover of horses, a hamster to the lover of hamsters, and justice to the lover of order. This is in the same way virtuous acts are pleasant to the lover of virtue. The man who does not rejoice in noble actions isn't noble himself. Therefore, virtuous actions must be in themselves pleasant. Aristotle says "Happiness then is the best, noblest, and most pleasant thing in the world."
Aristotle says it is worth recognizing that happiness isn't something achieved momentarily. True happiness takes a lifetime, or however long it takes for one to become a lover of virtues and a disciple of virtues. Ask the dead man. He'll know whether he's happy because happiness isn't something you do, it's an end you achieve. It's the end you achieve.
"But Aristotle, what about those situations governed by chance? What about the misfortunes life brings?" Yet even in these nobility shines through, when a man bears with resignation many great misfortunes, not through insensibility to pain but through greatness of soul.
If activities are, as we said, what gives life its character, no happy man can become miserable; for he will never do the acts that are hateful and mean. For the man who is truly good and wise, we think, bears all the chances life becomingly and always makes the best of circumstances, as a good general makes the best military use of the army at his command and a good shoemaker makes the best shoes out of the hides that are given him; and so with all other craftsmen. And if this is the case, the happy man can never become miserable; though he will not reach blessedness — Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics/16.
And since all of this starts with the soul, it must end with it as well; we have to know the soul, both the rational and the irrational dimensions of it. When we allow the irrational part to govern us, things get out of hand. I mean, they really get out of hand. Yes, it feels good to fulfill our most innate desires. Yes, Schopenhauer was right about the will to live. And yes, Freud said the same about the id ego. But when shit (excuse the profanity) hits the fan, you're left bogged down in the consequences of your actions. Is it ever worth it? No, not if you've abandoned virtue — this is a road to misery. There's nothing wrong in living the life of a hedonist as long as you remain true to your virtues and morals. Without it, we're horses mindlessly trotting. The only resolution lies in being virtuous both of mind and of character. And as you learn these, Aristotle bets you become wise and temperate and happy.
As always, thank you for reading.