Happiness And Eudaimonia

For Aristotle happiness is the criteria through which the natural goal or telos of a man is assessed (Roberts and Sutch, 2004: 51). Although the Greek word commonly translated as “happiness” is eudaimonia, it is a far more intricate concept than physical pleasure. Barnes describes Aristotle’s highest human good, eudaimonia, as ‘the activity of the soul in accordance with excellence’ (Barnes, 1982: 78). However, it begs the question as to how one becomes virtuous or excellent. In this way, there are disagreements as to what constitutes eudaimonia and the role of the political participation in order to attain it (Duvall and Dotson, 1998: 23). By establishing happiness as an inadequate translation for eudaimonia, this essay seeks to establish that happiness or eudaimonia does not entirely depend ‘upon citizenship or full membership of political society’ (Roberts and Sutch, 2004: 53).

One of the main objective of the doctrine that man is a ‘political animal’ is to demonstrate that ‘men need company of others, not only for the necessities of life but for the good life itself’ (Politics, 1, 2, 1252b30; Mulgan, 1990: 205).

The inference that it is not vital for the virtuous citizen of the polis to participate in the political activity, is confirmed by Aristotle’s account of the virtues themselves (Mulgan, 1990: 206). Excellence or virtue (arête) is a mean between two extremes which involves finding ‘the midpoint in a circle’ determined by rationality and reason of a given individual (Ethics: 2, 9, 11093a25). According to Aristotle, as humans are capable of philosophical reasoning, in order to attain happiness, the rational individual is required to assess his soul and consult with his rational friends in order to cultivate towards the...

... middle of paper ...

...quals for political rule, the theoretical possibility of absolute rule becomes a crucial part of it. This causes difficulties because if Aristotle values citizenship and political participation as vital for attaining eudaimonia, then the possibility of absolute rule is clearly inconsistent with his standard of justice as virtuous and capable citizens would have to give up their citizenship. Conversely, Aristotle would argue that surrendering citizenships can be done without loss of virtue or eudaimonia as both types of rule are equally just. Fundamentally, both provide outstanding virtuosity, ability and rule in the interest of all which is crucial for obtaining a good government and eudaimon life. Thus, even in the most just state, the value of political participation is such that it should be accepted when offered although it is not essential for the eudaimon life