Eudaimonia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search
For the moth, see Eudaemonia (moth). For other uses, see Eudaemon (disambiguation).
Eudaimonia (Greek: εὐδαιμονία [eu̯dai̯ moníaː]),
sometimes anglicized as eudaemonia or eudemonia /juːdɪˈmoʊniə/, is a Greek word
commonly translated as happiness or welfare; however, "human flourishing or prosperity" has
been proposed as a more accurate translation. [1][better  source  needed] Etymologically, it consists of the
words "eu" ("good") and "daimōn" ("spirit"). It is a central concept in Aristotelian
ethics and political philosophy, along with the terms "aretē", most often translated as "virtue" or
"excellence", and "phronesis", often translated as "practical or ethical wisdom". [2] In Aristotle's
works, eudaimonia (based on older Greek tradition) was used as the term for the highest
human good, and so it is the aim of practical philosophy, including ethics and political
philosophy, to consider (and also experience) what it really is, and how it can be achieved.
Discussion of the links between virtue of character (ēthikē aretē) and
happiness (eudaimonia) is one of the central concerns of ancient ethics, and a subject of much
disagreement. As a result there are many varieties of eudaimonism. Two of the most influential
forms are those of Aristotle[3] and the Stoics. Aristotle takes virtue and its exercise to be the
most important constituent in eudaimonia but acknowledges also the importance of external
goods such as health, wealth, and beauty. By contrast, the Stoics make virtue necessary and
sufficient for eudaimonia and thus deny the necessity of external goods. [4]

Definition[edit]
The Definitions, a dictionary of Greek philosophical terms attributed to Plato himself but
believed by modern scholars to have been written by his immediate followers in the Academy,
provides the following definition of the word eudaimonia: "The good composed of all goods; an
ability which suffices for living well; perfection in respect of virtue; resources sufficient for a
living creature."
In his Nicomachean Ethics (§21; 1095a15–22), Aristotle says that everyone agrees that
eudaimonia is the highest good for human beings, but that there is substantial disagreement
on what sort of life counts as doing and living well; i.e. eudaimon:
Verbally there is a very general agreement; for both the general run of men and people of
superior refinement say that it is [eudaimonia], and identify living well and faring well with being
happy; but with regard to what [eudaimonia] is they differ, and the many do not give the same
account as the wise. For the former think it is some plain and obvious thing like pleasure,
wealth or honour… [1095a17][5]

So, as Aristotle points out, saying that eudaimon life is a life which is objectively desirable, and
means living well, is not saying very much. Everyone wants to be eudaimon; and everyone
agrees that being eudaimon is related to faring well and to an individual's well being. The really
difficult question is to specify just what sort of activities enable one to live well. Aristotle
presents various popular conceptions of the best life for human beings. The candidates that he
mentions are a (1) life of pleasure, (2) a life of political activity and (3) a philosophical life.
One important move in Greek philosophy to answer the question of how to achieve eudaimonia
is to bring in another important concept in ancient philosophy, "arete" ("virtue"). Aristotle says
that the eudaimon life is one of "virtuous activity in accordance with reason" [1097b22–
1098a20]. And even Epicurus who argues that the eudaimon life is the life of pleasure
maintains that the life of pleasure coincides with the life of virtue. So the ancient ethical
theorists tend to agree that virtue is closely bound up with happiness (areté is bound up with
eudaimonia). However, they disagree on the way in which this is so. We shall consider the
main theories in a moment, but first a warning about the proper translation of areté.
As already noted, the Greek word areté is usually translated into English as "virtue". One
problem with this is that we are inclined to understand virtue in a moral sense, which is not
always what the ancients had in mind. For a Greek, areté pertains to all sorts of qualities we
would not regard as relevant to ethics, for example, physical beauty. So it is important to bear
in mind that the sense of ‘virtue' operative in ancient ethics is not exclusively moral and
includes more than states such as wisdom, courage and compassion. The sense of virtue
which areté connotes would include saying something like "speed is a virtue in a horse", or
"height is a virtue in a basketball player". Doing anything well requires virtue, and each
characteristic activity (such as carpentry, flute playing, etc.) has its own set of virtues. The
alternative translation "excellence" (or "a desirable quality") might be helpful in conveying this
general meaning of the term. The moral virtues are simply a subset of the general sense in
which a human being is capable of functioning well or excellently.
Positive Psychology defines Eudaimonia as a self-discovery, perceived development of one's
best potentials, a sense of purpose and meaning in life, intense involvement in activities,
investment of significant effort, and enjoyment of activities as personally expressive, deep
relationships.[6]

Etymology and translation[edit]

In terms of its etymology, eudaimonia is an abstract noun derived from eu meaning "well"
and daimon (daemon), which refers to a minor deity or a guardian spirit. [3]
Eudaimonia implies a positive and divine state of being that humanity is able to strive toward
and possibly reach. A literal view of eudaimonia means achieving a state of being similar to
benevolent deity, or being protected and looked after by a benevolent deity. As this would be
considered the most positive state to be in, the word is often translated as 'happiness' although
incorporating the divine nature of the word extends the meaning to also include the concepts of
being fortunate, or blessed. Despite this etymology, however, discussions of eudaimonia in
ancient Greek ethics are often conducted independently of any super-natural significance.
In his Nicomachean Ethics, (1095a15–22) Aristotle says that eudaimonia means 'doing and
living well'. It is significant that synonyms for eudaimonia are living well and doing well. On the
standard English translation, this would be to say that ‘happiness is doing well and living well'.
The word ‘happiness' does not entirely capture the meaning of the Greek word. One important
difference is that happiness often connotes being or tending to be in a certain pleasant state of
mind. For example, when we say that someone is "a very happy person", we usually mean that
they seem subjectively contented with the way things are going in their life. We mean to imply
that they feel good about the way things are going for them. In contrast, eudaimonia is a more
encompassing notion than feeling happy since events that do not contribute to one's
experience of feeling happy may affect one's eudaimonia.
Eudaimonia depends on all the things that would make us happy if we knew of their existence,
but quite independently of whether we do know about them. Ascribing eudaimonia to a person,
then, may include ascribing such things as being virtuous, being loved and having good
friends. But these are all objective judgments about someone's life: they concern a person's
really being virtuous, really being loved, and really having fine friends. This implies that a
person who has evil sons and daughters will not be judged to be eudaimonic even if he or she
does not know that they are evil and feels pleased and contented with the way they have
turned out (happy). Conversely, being loved by your children would not count towards your
happiness if you did not know that they loved you (and perhaps thought that they did not), but it
would count towards your eudaimonia. So eudaimonia corresponds to the idea of having an
objectively good or desirable life, to some extent independently of whether one knows that
certain things exist or not. It includes conscious experiences of well being, success, and failure,
but also a whole lot more. (See Aristotle's discussion: Nicomachean Ethics, book 1.10–1.11.)
Because of this discrepancy between the meaning of eudaimonia and happiness, some
alternative translations have been proposed. W.D. Ross suggests "well-being" and John
Cooper proposes "flourishing". These translations may avoid some of the misleading
associations carried by "happiness" although each tends to raise some problems of its own. In
some modern texts therefore, the other alternative is to leave the term in an English form of the
original Greek, as "eudaimonia".

Main views on eudaimonia and its relation to aretē [edit]

Socrates[edit]

French painter David portrayed the philosopher in The Death of Socrates(1787).

What we know of Socrates' philosophy is almost entirely derived from Plato's writings. Scholars
typically divide Plato's works into three periods: the early, middle, and late periods. They tend
to agree also that Plato's earliest works quite faithfully represent the teachings of Socrates and
that Plato's own views, which go beyond those of Socrates, appear for the first time in the
middle works such as the Phaedo and the Republic. This division will be employed here in
dividing up the positions of Socrates and Plato on eudaimonia.
As with all other ancient ethical thinkers, Socrates thought that all human beings wanted
eudaimonia more than anything else. (see Plato, Apology 30b, Euthydemus 280d–
282d, Meno 87d–89a). However, Socrates adopted a quite radical form of eudaimonism (see
above): he seems to have thought that virtue is both necessary and sufficient for eudaimonia.
Socrates is convinced that virtues such as self-control, courage, justice, piety, wisdom and
related qualities of mind and soul are absolutely crucial if a person is to lead a good and happy
(eudaimon) life. Virtues guarantee a happy life eudaimonia. For example, in the Meno, with
respect to wisdom, he says: "everything the soul endeavours or endures under the guidance of
wisdom ends in happiness" [Meno 88c].
In the Apology, Socrates clearly presents his disagreement with those who think that the
eudaimon life is the life of honour or pleasure, when he chastises the Athenians for caring
more for riches and honour than the state of their souls.
Good Sir, you are an Athenian, a citizen of the greatest city with the greatest reputation for
both wisdom and power; are you not ashamed of your eagerness to possess as much wealth,
reputation, and honors as possible, while you do not care for nor give thought to wisdom or
truth or the best possible state of your soul [29e]. [7]

... it does not seem like human nature for me to have neglected all my own affairs and to have
tolerated this neglect for so many years while I was always concerned with you, approaching
each one of you like a father or an elder brother to persuade you to care for virtue. [31a–b;
italics added]

It emerges a bit further on that this concern for one's soul, that one's soul might be in the best
possible state, amounts to acquiring moral virtue. So Socrates' point that the Athenians should
care for their souls means that they should care for their virtue, rather than pursuing honour or
riches. Virtues are states of the soul. When a soul has been properly cared for and perfected it
possesses the virtues. Moreover, according to Socrates, this state of the soul, moral virtue, is
the most important good. The health of the soul is incomparably more important for
eudaimonia than (e.g.) wealth and political power. Someone with a virtuous soul is better off
than someone who is wealthy and honoured but whose soul is corrupted by unjust actions.
This view is confirmed in the Crito, where Socrates gets Crito to agree that the perfection of the
soul, virtue, is the most important good:
And is life worth living for us with that part of us corrupted that unjust action harms and just
action benefits? Or do we think that part of us, whatever it is, that is concerned with justice and
injustice, is inferior to the body? Not at all. It is much more valuable…? Much more… (47e–
48a)

Here Socrates argues that life is not worth living if the soul is ruined by wrongdoing. [8] In
summary, Socrates seems to think that virtue is both necessary and sufficient for eudaimonia.
A person who is not virtuous cannot be happy, and a person with virtue cannot fail to be happy.
We shall see later on that Stoic ethics takes its cue from this Socratic insight.
Plato[edit]
Plato's great work of the middle period, the Republic, is devoted to answering a challenge
made by the sophist Thrasymachus, that conventional morality, particularly the 'virtue' of
justice, actually prevents the strong man from achieving eudaimonia. Thrasymachus's views
are restatements of a position which Plato discusses earlier on in his writings, in the Gorgias,
through the mouthpiece of Callicles. The basic argument presented by Thrasymachus and
Callicles is that justice (being just) hinders or prevents the achievement of eudaimonia
because conventional morality requires that we control ourselves and hence live with un-
satiated desires. This idea is vividly illustrated in book 2 of the Republic when Glaucon, taking
up Thrasymachus' challenge, recounts a myth of the magical ring of Gyges. According to the
myth, Gyges becomes king of Lydia when he stumbles upon a magical ring, which, when he
turns it a particular way, makes him invisible, so that he can satisfy any desire he wishes
without fear of punishment. When he discovers the power of the ring he kills the king, marries
his wife and takes over the throne. The thrust of Glaucon's challenge is that no one would be
just if he could escape the retribution he would normally encounter for fulfilling his desires at
whim. But if eudaimonia is to be achieved through the satisfaction of desire, whereas being just
or acting justly requires suppression of desire, then it is not in the interests of the strong man to
act according to the dictates of conventional morality. (This general line of argument reoccurs
much later in the philosophy of Nietzsche.) Throughout the rest of the Republic, Plato aims to
refute this claim by showing that the virtue of justice is necessary for eudaimonia.

The School of Athens by Raffaello Sanzio, 1509, showing Plato (left) and Aristotle (right)

The argument of the Republic is lengthy and complex. In brief, Plato argues that virtues are
states of the soul, and that the just person is someone whose soul is ordered and harmonious,
with all its parts functioning properly to the person's benefit. In contrast, Plato argues that the
unjust man's soul, without the virtues, is chaotic and at war with itself, so that even if he were
able to satisfy most of his desires, his lack of inner harmony and unity thwart any chance he
has of achieving eudaimonia. Plato's ethical theory is eudaimonistic because it maintains that
eudaimonia depends on virtue. On Plato's version of the relationship, virtue is depicted as the
most crucial and the dominant constituent of eudaimonia.
Aristotle[edit]
Aristotle's account is articulated in the Nicomachean Ethics and the Eudemian Ethics. In
outline, for Aristotle, eudaimonia involves activity, exhibiting virtue (aretēsometimes translated
as excellence) in accordance with reason. This conception of eudaimonia derives from
Aristotle's essentialist understanding of human nature, the view that reason (logos sometimes
translated as rationality) is unique to human beings and that the ideal function or work (ergon)
of a human being is the fullest or most perfect exercise of reason. Basically, well being
(eudaimonia) is gained by proper development of one's highest and most human capabilities
and human beings are "the rational animal". It follows that eudaimonia for a human being is the
attainment of excellence (areté) in reason.
According to Aristotle, eudaimonia actually requires activity, action, so that it is not sufficient for
a person to possess a squandered ability or disposition. Eudaimonia requires not only good
character but rational activity. Aristotle clearly maintains that to live in accordance with reason
means achieving excellence thereby. Moreover, he claims this excellence cannot be isolated
and so competencies are also required appropriate to related functions. For example, if being a
truly outstanding scientist requires impressive math skills, one might say "doing mathematics
well is necessary to be a first rate scientist". From this it follows that eudaimonia, living well,
consists in activities exercising the rational part of the psyche in accordance with the virtues or
excellency of reason [1097b22–1098a20]. Which is to say, to be fully engaged in the
intellectually stimulating and fulfilling work at which one achieves well-earned success. The
rest of the Nicomachean Ethics is devoted to filling out the claim that the best life for a human
being is the life of excellence in accordance with reason. Since reason for Aristotle is not only
theoretical but practical as well, he spends quite a bit of time discussing excellence of
character, which enables a person to exercise his practical reason (i.e., reason relating to
action) successfully.
Aristotle's ethical theory is eudaimonist because it maintains that eudaimonia depends on
virtue. However, it is Aristotle's explicit view that virtue is necessary but not sufficient for
eudaimonia. While emphasizing the importance of the rational aspect of the psyche, he does
not ignore the importance of other ‘goods' such as friends, wealth, and power in a life that is
eudaimonic. He doubts the likelihood of being eudaimonic if one lacks certain external goods
such as ‘good birth, good children, and beauty'. So, a person who is hideously ugly or has "lost
children or good friends through death" (1099b5–6), or who is isolated, is unlikely to be
eudaimon. In this way, "dumb luck" (chance) can preempt one's attainment of eudaimonia.
Epicurus[edit]
Epicurus identified eudaimonia with the life of pleasure.

Epicurus' ethical theory is hedonistic. (His view proved very influential on the founders and best
proponents of utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.) Hedonism is the view that
pleasure is the only intrinsic good and that pain is the only intrinsic bad. An object, experience
or state of affairs is intrinsically valuable if it is good simply because of what it is. Intrinsic value
is to be contrasted with instrumental value. An object, experience or state of affairs is
instrumentally valuable if it serves as a means to what is intrinsically valuable. To see this,
consider the following example. Suppose a person spends their days and nights in an office,
working at not entirely pleasant activities for the purpose of receiving money. Someone asks
them "why do you want the money?", and they answer: "So, I can buy an apartment
overlooking the ocean, and a red sports car." This answer expresses the point that money is
instrumentally valuable because its value lies in what one obtains by means of it – in this case,
the money is a means to getting an apartment and a sports car and the value of making this
money dependent on the price of these commodities.
Epicurus identifies the good life with the life of pleasure. He understands eudaimonia as a
more or less continuous experience of pleasure and, also, freedom from pain and distress. But
it is important to notice that Epicurus does not advocate that one pursue any and every
pleasure. Rather, he recommends a policy whereby pleasures are maximized "in the long run".
In other words, Epicurus claims that some pleasures are not worth having because they lead to
greater pains, and some pains are worthwhile when they lead to greater pleasures. The best
strategy for attaining a maximal amount of pleasure overall is not to seek instant gratification
but to work out a sensible long term policy.
Ancient Greek ethics is eudaimonist because it links virtue and eudaimonia, where eudaimonia
refers to an individual's well being. Epicurus' doctrine can be considered eudaimonist since
Epicurus argues that a life of pleasure will coincide with a life of virtue. He believes that we do
and ought to seek virtue because virtue brings pleasure. Epicurus' basic doctrine is that a life
of virtue is the life which generates the most amount of pleasure, and it is for this reason that
we ought to be virtuous. This thesis—the eudaimon life is the pleasurable life—is not
a tautology as "eudaimonia is the good life" would be: rather, it is the substantive and
controversial claim that a life of pleasure and absence of pain is what eudaimonia consists in.
One important difference between Epicurus' eudaimonism and that of Plato and Aristotle is that
for the latter virtue is a constituent of eudaimonia, whereas Epicurus makes virtue a means to
happiness. To this difference, consider Aristotle's theory. Aristotle maintains that eudaimonia is
what everyone wants (and Epicurus would agree). He also thinks that eudaimonia is best
achieved by a life of virtuous activity in accordance with reason. The virtuous person takes
pleasure in doing the right thing as a result of a proper training of moral and intellectual
character (See e.g., Nicomachean Ethics 1099a5). However, Aristotle does not think that
virtuous activity is pursued for the sake of pleasure. Pleasure is a byproduct of virtuous action:
it does not enter at all into the reasons why virtuous action is virtuous. Aristotle does not think
that we literally aim for eudaimonia. Rather, eudaimonia is what we achieve (assuming that we
aren't particularly unfortunate in the possession of external goods) when we live according to
the requirements of reason. Virtue is the largest constituent in a eudaimon life. By contrast,
Epicurus holds that virtue is the means to achieve happiness. His theory is eudaimonist in that
he holds that virtue is indispensable to happiness; but virtue is not a constituent of a eudaimon
life, and being virtuous is not (external goods aside) identical with being eudaimon. Rather,
according to Epicurus, virtue is only instrumentally related to happiness. So whereas Aristotle
would not say that one ought to aim for virtue in order to attain pleasure, Epicurus would
endorse this claim.
The Stoics[edit]
Zeno thought happiness was a "good flow of life."

Stoic philosophy begins with Zeno of Citium c.300 BC, and was developed by Cleanthes (331–
232 BC) and Chrysippus (c.280–c.206 BC) into a formidable systematic unity.[9] Zeno believed
happiness was a "good flow of life"; Cleanthes suggested it was "living in agreement with
nature", and Chrysippus believed it was "living in accordance with experience of what happens
by nature".[9] Stoic ethics is a particularly strong version of eudaimonism. According to the
Stoics, virtue is necessary and sufficient for eudaimonia. (This thesis is generally regarded as
stemming from the Socrates of Plato's earlier dialogues.) We saw earlier that the conventional
Greek concept of arete is not quite the same as that denoted by virtue, which has Christian
connotations of charity, patience, and uprightness, since arete includes many non-moral
virtues such as physical strength and beauty. However, the Stoic concept of arete is much
nearer to the Christian conception of virtue, which refers to the moral virtues. However, unlike
Christian understandings of virtue, righteousness or piety, the Stoic conception does not place
as great an emphasis on mercy, forgiveness, self-abasement (i.e. the ritual process of
declaring complete powerlessness and humility before God), charity and self-sacrificial love,
though these behaviors/mentalities are not necessarily spurned by the Stoics (they are
spurned by some other philosophers of Antiquity). Rather Stoicism emphasizes states such as
justice, honesty, moderation, simplicity, self-discipline, resolve, fortitude, and courage (states
which Christianity also encourages).
The Stoics make a radical claim that the eudaimon life is the morally virtuous life. Moral virtue
is good, and moral vice is bad, and everything else, such as health, honour and riches, are
merely "neutral".[9] The Stoics therefore are committed to saying that external goods such as
wealth and physical beauty are not really good at all. Moral virtue is both necessary and
sufficient for eudaimonia. In this, they are akin to Cynic philosophers such
as Antisthenes and Diogenes in denying the importance to eudaimonia of external goods and
circumstances, such as were recognized by Aristotle, who thought that severe misfortune
(such as the death of one's family and friends) could rob even the most virtuous person of
eudaimonia. This Stoic doctrine re-emerges later in the history of ethical philosophy in the
writings of Immanuel Kant, who argues that the possession of a "good will" is the only
unconditional good. One difference is that whereas the Stoics regard external goods as
neutral, as neither good nor bad, Kant's position seems to be that external goods are good, but
only so far as they are a condition to achieving happiness.

Modern Moral Philosophy[edit]

Interest in the concept of eudaimonia and ancient ethical theory more generally enjoyed a
revival in the twentieth century. G. E. M. Anscombe in her article "Modern Moral Philosophy"
(1958) argued that duty-based conceptions of morality are conceptually incoherent for they are
based on the idea of a "law without a lawgiver". [10] She claims a system of morality conceived
along the lines of the Ten Commandments depends on someone having made these rules.
[11]
 Anscombe recommends a return to the eudaimonistic ethical theories of the ancients,
particularly Aristotle, which ground morality in the interests and well being of human moral
agents, and can do so without appealing to any such lawgiver.
Julia Driver in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains:
Anscombe's article Modern Moral Philosophy stimulated the development of virtue ethics as an
alternative to Utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics, and Social Contract theories. Her primary charge in
the article is that, as secular approaches to moral theory, they are without foundation. They
use concepts such as "morally ought", "morally obligated", "morally right", and so forth that are
legalistic and require a legislator as the source of moral authority. In the past God occupied
that role, but systems that dispense with God as part of the theory are lacking the proper
foundation for meaningful employment of those concepts. [12]

Eudaimonic well-being in 166 nations based on Gallup World Poll data

Models of eudaimonia in psychology emerged from early work on self-actualization and the

means of its accomplishment by researchers such as Erik Erikson, Gordon Allport,
and Abraham Maslow.[13]
Central theories are Diener's tripartite model of subjective well-being, Ryff's Six-factor Model of
Psychological Well-being, Keyes work on flourishing, and Seligman's contributions to positive
psychology and his theories on authentic happiness and P.E.R.M.A. Related concepts
are happiness, flourishing, quality of life, contentment,[14] and meaningful life.