Course: PHI 401.

2
Semester: Spring 2019
Report on Eudaimonia

Submitted to
Dr. Mohammad Kamrul Ahsan (Krl)
Lecturer
Department of History and philosophy,
North South University.

Submitted by
Name ID

Md. Akib Imteaz 1530126630

Md. Jahid Mahmud 1520238030

S.M. Sefaat Ahammed 1610876030

Faria Fyroze 1520152030
Md. Tanvir Haque 1520322031
Md. Mashkatul Islam Mashfiq 1520652030
Md. Saif Anwar 1411605630
Labli Akter Banu 1420441030

Submission Date: April 21, 2019

Table of Contents
Introduction ..............................................................................................................1
What is Eudaimonia? ..............................................................................................1
A Brief History of Eudaimonia ...............................................................................2
Socrates on Eudaimonia..........................................................................................2
Plato and Eudaimonism ..........................................................................................2
Aristotle and Eudaimonia .......................................................................................3
Aristotle & his view on ethics ..................................................................................4
Happiness Being the Ultimate Goal .......................................................................5
The Hierarchical view of Nature ............................................................................6
Modern Moral Philosophy of eudaimonia .............................................................7
Good and Virtue .......................................................................................................8
Conclusion.................................................................................................................8
References ...............................................................................................................10
 Introduction
There are a million different ways to define happiness. Especially in the field of psychology, where
operational definitions are a constant work in progress. Eudaimonia is not only one of the oldest,
but it has stood the test of time for another reason. That reason being, eudaimonia has the whole
element of subjectivity built into it. It’s simultaneously both less and more prescriptive and dives
quite deeply into the ideas of virtues and virtue ethics.

Eudaimonia is a moral philosophy which defines the right action as that leads to the "well-being"
of the individual. It constructs the part of the process of Virtue Ethics propounded by the ancient
Greek philosophers, where the virtues in one's everyday activities, subject to the exercise of
practical wisdom to resolve any conflicts or dilemmas which might arise, will allow the individual
to flourish and live the good life through a lifetime practicing.

What is Eudaimonia?
The term "eudaimonia" is a classical Greek word. (History of Eudaimonism, 2013).Commonly
translated as "happiness" but probably better described as "well-being" or "good life". More
literally it means "having a good guardian spirit". Eudaimonia as the ultimate goal is an objective,
not a subjective and it characterizes the well-lived life also the neutral of the emotional state of the
person experiencing it.

In Greek philosophy, Eudaimonia means achieving the best conditions possible for a human being,
in every sense–not only happiness, but also virtue, morality, and a meaningful life. It was the
ultimate goal of philosophy: to become better people—to fulfill our unique potential as human
beings. Aristotle wrote about the idea the most, and it was important to many Greek philosophers,
from Socrates, the father of Greek philosophy, through to Stoicism, a late-Greek philosophy.

1|Page
 A Brief History of Eudaimonia
As noted, the concept of Eudaimonia can be traced back to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Prior
to this, however, Athenian philosophers such as Socrates and Plato (Aristotle’s mentor) were
already entertaining similar concepts.

Socrates on Eudaimonia

Socrates, like Plato, believed that virtue (or arête, the very idea of virtue) was a form of
knowledge—specifically, a knowledge of good and evil (Bobonich, 2010). That is, he saw
numerous virtues—justice, piety, courage as united. That is, all were one, and they were all
knowledge.
Socrates viewed this knowledge as required for us as humans to achieve the ‘ultimate good’,
which was eudaimonia. And by ‘us’, Socrates meant the individual (Waterman, 1993; Deci &
Ryan, 2006).

Plato and Eudaimonism

In a somewhat similar vein, Plato believed that individuals naturally feel unhappiness when they
do something they know and acknowledge to be wrong (Price, 2011). Eudaimonia, according to
Plato, was the highest and ultimate aim of both moral thought and behavior.

Nonetheless, while Plato was believed somewhat to have refined the concept, he offered no
direct definition for it. As with Socrates, he saw virtue as integral to eudaimonia.

According to Aristotle, Eudaimonia constructed not by wealth, honor or power but by rational
activity consequent upon virtue over a complete life, what might be described today as productive
self-actualization. Aristotle judged this rational activity should manifest as honesty, pride,
friendliness, and wittiness. Rationality in judgment is mutually beneficial friendships and scientific
knowledge.

The concept eudaimonia derives from Aristotle's essentialist understanding of human nature, the
view that reason is unique to human beings and that the ideal function or work of a human being
is the fullest or most perfect exercise of reason. Basically well-being (eudaimonia) is gained by

2|Page
the proper development of one's highest and most human capabilities as human beings are "the
rational animal". It follows that eudaimonia for a human being is the attainment of excellence in
reason.

Eudaimonia requires good character and rational activity. Aristotle clearly maintains that to live
in accordance with reason means achieving excellence. Moreover, he claims this excellence cannot
be different. For example, 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
eudaimonia consists in activities exercising the virtues or excellence.

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 also practical. He explains excellence of character, which enables a person to exercise his
practical reason successfully.

The Stoics also believed to some extent that eudaimonia was the highest good; although for them
virtue and well-being consist of living according to Nature and even if perfect virtue is actually
unachievable, the least we can do to is to act "befittingly" in the hope of approaching or
approximating eudaimonia.

Immanuel Kant was an important opponent of Eudaimonism. He rejected the view that happiness
is the highest good, and insisted that happiness can be an ingredient of the highest good, but only
if it is deserved. Still later, Existentialism rejected Eudaimonism on the grounds that happiness is
just a bourgeois fantasy.

Aristotle and Eudaimonia

Aristotle was one of the great Greek philosophers. His thinking was very influential both in his
time and later. Aristotle studied art, nature, and men. From the study of humanity was born that of
ethics, in which the concept of eudaimonia plays a fundamental role. In a very simplistic way,
eudaimonia is 'happiness'. In this lesson, we are going to see how Aristotle understands it and how
even today his ethics can serve us to live better.

Aristotle wrote three works dealing with ethics. Eudaimonia, Great Ethics, and Nicomaxhean
Ethics. The first influenced by plato’s thinking and great Ethics is a summary of Nicomachean

3|Page
Ethics. In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle exposes his thoughts on the good, the virtue, and the
happiness.

The first thing Aristotle tells us is that everything has a purpose and according to that purpose we
decide whether things are good or bad. So for example, the purpose of knife is to cut. Therefore, a
good knife will be the one that cuts well and a bad knife does not cut.

What is purpose of people? Aristotle says that the purpose of mankind is eudaimonia-happiness.
So, the purpose of man is to achieve eudaimonia which is the state of sense and permanent
happiness, rather than momentary exaltation of sense.

Aristotle & his view on ethics

Aristotle emphasized on three aspects of ethics such as Eudemian Ethics, Great Ethics and
Nicomachean Ethics. Among three of them The Nicomachean Ethics is the most important which
is the study of personal morality and the end of human life. The Great Ethics is a summary of
Nicomachean Ethics.

The first thing Aristotle tells us is that everything has a purpose and, according to that purpose, we
decide whether things are good or bad ( Nagel, 2018). So for example, the purpose of a knife is to
cut. Therefore, a 'good' knife will be the one that cuts well and a 'bad' knife that does not cut.

Aristotle’s central ethical concept, accordingly, is a unified, all-embracing notion of ‘happiness’

or more accurately eudaimonia (Solomon, 2004 ). Our action will be good or bad depending on
this ultimate goal. If a person performs an action, this action will be ‘good’ if it gives him or her
happiness. Living healthy, for example, is a ‘good’ action because it provides us with good health
which, in the long run, gives us happiness. But, what happens when a person feels happy doing
actions that hurt others? Aristotle says that the world places everyone in the right place. Thus, if a
person steals it may be that, for the moment, the robbery will provide him with happiness. But that
person will end up in jail (or running away) and that will not bring him any happiness, but, on the
contrary, it will bring him misfortune.

4|Page
 Happiness Being the Ultimate Goal

Taking a stab at happiness may really shield us from being upbeat. When we frantically need to
be happy, we just strengthen our desperation. When we set out to dependably be cheerful, we will
probably stifle negative feelings, neglect to acknowledge them, and in the long run become
disappointed or discouraged. Each objective is made up by a looking for conscious personality.
Objectives are sense of self builds that have esteem just inside a general public that makes
personalities emerge. Individuals need to get results (they will in general observe nothing else), so
we need to tell them about our achievements, thus we should accomplish objectives. Our True Will
is a natural conviction that we need to do either. It's in our blood, our qualities and our character.
We respect the method for the will, not the objectives we accomplish en route. They are only a
reward, and happiness is a side-effect. The possibility of happiness may well impact our oblivious
intellectual handling, yet saying "I do it for happiness" is by all accounts a social propensity in
excess of a satisfactory depiction of our eccentric reality.

The accomplishment of happiness, as per Aristotle, is the ultimate objective of each man. His
thinking is in this way: All human exercises are done so as to achieve something that is great. We
don't accomplish something since we figure it will be terrible for us. Also, the greater part of these
exercises are not the primary goal, but instead a way to a higher end. Therefore, the movement that
is an end in itself, composes the productive rationalist, is the most elevated great, and that great is
happiness. We go for happiness for the good of its own, not on the grounds that it will accomplish
something different. Happiness, in this manner, is our most prominent mission. Aristotle begins
with the case that happiness is subject to virtue. He portrays righteousness as an air, instead of a
movement. The individual should be normally a 'prudent' individual, as opposed to simply acting
as needs be. This praiseworthy man finds doing righteous acts pleasurable, which is apparently
why he does them.

Yet moral virtues aren't exactly enough. The perfect man likewise needs the intellectual virtues.
These are depicted as calculative thinking, for example, craftsmanship or specialized aptitude and
judiciousness. There is likewise insightful thinking, which is disengaged from human
undertakings. This incorporates logical information, instinct, and knowledge. With these capacities

5|Page
we can reasonably pick what the most upright activity is. Aristotle's examination at that point takes
a tremendous right transform into the field of friendship. Friendship dependent on goodness will
last since it is between two individuals who adore each other for their identity, not for what they
can pick up from one another. Equity and companionship are firmly associated, says Aristotle, in
light of the fact that the state needs its natives to be neighborly with one another.

Later Aristotle said we have to consolidate Friendship, ideals and good moral values to recognize
what genuine happiness is. From this above portrayals he clarified how happiness is the true
objective and accomplishing it is a definitive wonder for us all.

The Hierarchical view of Nature

Aristotle had a lifelong interest in the study of nature. He investigated a variety of four different
topics like motion, priority, matter, and form, to systematic explorations and clarifications of
natural portents across different kinds of natural entities. These different inquires integrated into a
framework that describing the natural entities.

Nature, according to Aristotle, is an inner principle of change and being at rest (Physics 2.1,
192b20–23). Natures, understandably, can feature in any of these four causal functions. However,
when the matter of an entity functions as its nature, when its natural motion and rest are explained
in terms of the matter it is made of this matter must possess some causally relevant features,
bestowed upon it by its own formal aspect. ("Aristotle’s Natural Philosophy)", 2018)

So, according to Aristotle, everything that we pursue or aim at is good. Some of the goods we
pursue are activities like dancing and some are products of activities such as a good grade on an
exam. While there are many goods that we pursue, these goods can be hierarchically ordered
according to “for-the-sake-of” relationships. While some goods are pursued for their own sake that
is comfort, others are pursued for the sake of something else like money. If money is pursued for
the sake of comfort, then comfort is a higher good than money.

6|Page
By ordering goods in this way, we find a kind of pyramid of goods, with those goods that we
pursue for their own sakes near the top, and those goods that are merely useful for the attainment
of other goods near the bottom.

Thus, while every goal we pursue is good in itself, sometimes it can be pursued in a way that
compromises the attainment of higher goods making the overall pursuit bad. There is only one
good that Aristotle thinks is pursued entirely for itself, and not for the sake of anything else. That
good, according to Aristotle, is Eudaimonia that usually translated as “happiness” although
“flourishing” might be as good a translation.

Modern Moral Philosophy of eudaimonia

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". She claims a gadget of morality conceived alongside the strains of
the Ten Commandments relies upon on anybody having made these rules. Anscombe recommends
a return to the eudemonistic ethical theories of the ancients, especially Aristotle, which ground
morality in the pastimes and well-being of human ethical agents, and can do so without appealing
to any such lawgiver.

Julia Driver in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy clarifies:

Anscombe's article Modern Moral Philosophy animated the advancement of goodness morals as
an option in contrast to Utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics, and Social Contract speculations. Moreover,
she also said that it isn't gainful for us at present to do moral reasoning; that it ought to be dropped
at any rate until we have a sufficient theory of brain research, in which we are prominently
deficient. The second is that the ideas of Philosophy, and obligation — moral Philosophy and good
obligation, in other words — and of what is ethically good and bad, and of the ethical feeling of
'should', should be discarded if this is mentally conceivable; on the grounds that they are survivals,
or subordinates from survivals, from a prior origination of morals which never again for the most
part endures, and are just unsafe without it. Her third theory is that the contrasts between the

7|Page
outstanding English authors on good reasoning from Sedgwick to the present day are of little
significance.

In my perspective, there are human beings who take delivery of the notions of ‘obligation’ and of
the ‘moral’ ought however to reject the thinking of a divine legislator. They seem for non-divine
sources of moral norms: society, motive or rules by way of oneself, contract, and human virtue.

Good and Virtue

According to Aristotle, virtue is a disposition to act in a particular thing but it is not a subconscious
or “natural” disposition. Rather, it is a carefully, consciously and rationally in calculated habit that
is not done for its own sake. He also argues that the real happiness is the exercise of good and of
virtue.

According to Socrates, virtue is needed for happiness .it is a perfect thing for happiness. Happiness
is not existed without virtue because virtue brings many types of happiness. But there are many
other things which cannot bring happiness.

Aristotle and Socrates give their opinions differently. Aristotle says that good is an activity of the
soul accordance with virtue. (Eudaimonia in Aristotelian Ethics, 2006).

He says that it is not important to know the good. Through knowing good, people must be practice
it. To get the virtue (the authentic arête), it is very much important to practice it. On the other hand,
Socrates says that only knowing the good is the important thing for life because a virtuous person
can differentiate between right and wrong, good and bad.

Conclusion

Eudaimonia always defines “well-being” of the individuals. It is a part of the ethics of virtue. We
know that happiness is a part of life and eudaimonia is concerned about a life of person or
individual. Whereas happiness is closely associated with an assessment of the quality of an
individual’s life, that is purely subjective, eudaimonia is more concerned with a life as a desirably
objective. This therefore makes eudaimonia a more encompassing notion as compared to happiness
given that bad events that do not affect the happiness experience of an individual tend to affect

8|Page
their (experience of) eudaimonia. This therefore makes eudaimonia an all the more incorporating
idea when contrasted with happiness given that bad events that don't influence the satisfaction
experience of an individual will in general influence their experience of eudaimonia.

9|Page
 References

Aristotle’s Natural Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). (2018, January 8).

Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-natphil/

Ancient thinkers. (2014). Retrieved from https://positivepsychologyprogram.com/eudaimonia/

Bobonich, C. (2010). Socrates and Eudaimonia. In Morrison, D.R. (2010). The Cambridge
Companion to Socrates. Cambridge University Press, p.293.

Eudaimonia in Aristotelian Ethics. (2006). Retrieved from

https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-eudaimonia-in-aristotelian-ethics.html

History of Eudaimonism.(2013). Retrieved from

https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_eudaimonism.html

How "God" functioned in Socrates' life. (2008). Retrieved from

https://web.archive.org/web/20100226163749/http://www.ohiodialogues.org/nugget/how-god-
functioned-socrates-life

Eudaimonia in Aristotelian Ethics. (2006). Retrieved from

https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-eudaimonia-in-aristotelian-ethics.html

Solomon, R.C., 2004. Aristotle, ethics and business organizations. Organization Studies, 25(6),
pp.1021-1043.

10 | P a g e