In Book I of his Nicomachean Ethics (NE), Aristotle defines happiness, or
eudaimonia, in accordance with an argument he makes regarding the
distinctive function of human beings. In this paper, I argue that, despite this
argument, there are moments in the NE where Aristotle appeals to elements
of happiness that don’t follow from the function argument itself. The place of
these elements in Aristotle’s account of happiness should, therefore, be a
matter of perplexity. For, how can Aristotle appeal …
Read moreIn Book I of his Nicomachean Ethics (NE), Aristotle defines happiness, or
eudaimonia, in accordance with an argument he makes regarding the
distinctive function of human beings. In this paper, I argue that, despite this
argument, there are moments in the NE where Aristotle appeals to elements
of happiness that don’t follow from the function argument itself. The place of
these elements in Aristotle’s account of happiness should, therefore, be a
matter of perplexity. For, how can Aristotle appeal to elements of happiness
not entailed by his argument for what happiness involves? I will examine two
instances that exemplify the sort of appeal to outside elements that I have in
mind. The first deals with Aristotle’s reference, in NE, I, 8, to certain
goods—ancestry, children, beauty—goods unrelated to man’s function or his
fulfillment of it, but nevertheless required for his happiness. The second
instance involves pleasure. Aristotle makes various arguments, both in Books
I and X of the NE, that tie pleasure to the activity of the soul, and the function
argument in turn. However, none of these arguments succeeds in
demonstrating that pleasure would necessarily follow from this activity.
Taken together then, these two examples demonstrate the extent to which
Aristotle’s definition of happiness is more inclusive than his function
argument permits.