Matthew Cashen

When developing his account of happiness (eudaimonia) in the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle twice invokes the fate of Priam to caution readers about the potential devastations of misfortune. He states that “no one calls happy” (oudeis eudaimonizei) a person who has suffered such a fate, but his reasoning on the topic is the subject of debate. In this paper, I give a detailed analysis of Aristotle’s account of Priam and argue that, according to the most consonant reading of the text, Priam’s suffering impacts his happiness only if, and only to the extent that, it prevents excellent activity. My analysis opposes an influential interpretation of the relationship between happiness and external goods recently defended by Timothy Roche.

Historically, philosophers have identified happiness with, among other things, pleasure, contentment, desire satisfaction, and, if we count the Greek eudaimonia as happiness, the life of virtue. When faced with competing theories of happiness, we need a way to decide which theory is more accurate. According to Larry Wayne Sumner's principle of descriptive adequacy, the best theory of happiness is the theory that best describes our ordinary, pretheoretical beliefs and intuitions. The chief aim of this article is to show that the principle of descriptive adequacy is mistaken. To do this, it shows how the principle breaks down when applied to Aristotle's theory of eudaimonia, a theory Sumner claims to be descriptively inadequate as a theory of happiness. The article argues that we should reject descriptive adequacy as a metaphilosophical principle on the grounds that our intuitions and beliefs about happiness are too inchoate for any theory adequately to describe.

When he claims that it is hard to be happy when “exceedingly ugly, basely born, or alone and childless,” Aristotle introduces a notorious puzzle about his theory of happiness: if happiness is an activity of soul in accordance with virtue, why should appearance, family, and social life affect it? In this paper, I propose an answer to this puzzle. Against Martha Nussbaum, T.H. Irwin, and John Cooper, who maintain that “external goods” like beauty, health, and wealth, are constitutive parts of Aristotelian happiness, I argue that the deprivation of such goods diminishes happiness only insofar as it prevent a person from being virtuous, and I suggest that deprivation often prevents a person from being virtuous not by making virtuous action impossible, but by corrupting a person’s attitudes and character.

The idea that a person's happiness depends singly on her own subjective assessment and sunilarly subjectivist views of happiness have become philosophical orthodoxy lately. Against such views, I defend the claim that people do falsely judge themselves happy. I begin by clarifying the issues: what I mean by happiness and what I have in mind in claiming that happiness can be false. I then substantiate my claim by contrasting it with, and defending it against, a subjectivist view that makes happiness depend singly on a person's own self-assessment