HAPPINESS AND ULTIMATE PURPOSE

Aristotle begins his discussion of ethics by showing

that every act that a person does is directed toward
a particular purpose, aim, or what the Greeks
called telos. There is a purpose why one does
something, and for Aristotle, a person's action
manifests a good that she aspires for. Every pursuit
of a person hopes to achieve a good. One eats for
the purpose of the good that it gives sustenance
to the body. A person pursues a chosen career,
aiming for a good, that is, to provide a better
future for her family.
A person will not do anything which is not
beneficial to her. Even a drug user
"thinks" that substance abuse will cause
her good. This does not necessarily mean
that using drugs is good but a "drug
addict" would want to believe that such
act is good. Therefore, for Aristotle, the
good is considered to be the telos or
purpose for which all acts seek to
achieve.
One must understand that an individual does
actions and pursuits in life and
correspondingly each of these activities has
different aims. Aristotle is aware that one
does an act not only to achieve a particular
purpose but also believes such purpose can be
utilized for a higher goal or activity, which
then can be used to achieve an even higher
purpose and so on. In other words, the
different goods that one pursues form a
hierarchy of teloi (plural form of telos).
Aristotle says:
.(But a certain difference is found among ends; some
are activities, others are products apart from the
activities that produce them. Where there are ends
apart from the actions, it is the nature of the products
to be better than the activities. Now, as there are many
actions, arts, and sciences, their ends also are many;
the end of the medical art is health, that of
shipbuilding a vessel, that of strategy victory, that of
economics wealth. But where such arts fall under a
single capacity-as bridle-making and the other arts
concerned with
the equipment of horses fall under the
art of riding and this and every military
action under strategy, in the same way
other arts fall under yet others-in all of
these, the end of the master arts are to
be preferred to all the subordinate
ends; for it is for the sake of the
former that the latter is pursued)
When one diligently writes down notes while listening to
a lecture given by the teacher, she does this for the
purpose of being able to remember the lessons of the
course This purpose of remembering in turn becomes an
act to achieve a higher aim which is to pass the
examinations given by the teacher which then becomes
a product that can help the person attain the goal of
having a passing mark in the course. It is important for
Aristotle that one becomes clear of the hierarchy of
goals that the different acts produce in order for person
to distinguish which actions are higher than the other.
With the condition that there is a hierarchy of telos
Aristotle then asks about the highest purpose which
is the ultimate good of a human being. Aristotle
discusses the general criteria in order for one to
recognize the highest good of man. First, the
highest good of a person must be final. As a final
end, it is no longer utilized for the sake of arriving
at a much higher end. In our example above the
purpose of remembering the lessons in the course,
that is why one writes down notes is not the final
end because it is clear that such purpose is aimed
at achieving a much higher goal.
Second, the ultimate telos of a person must be
self-sufficient. Satisfaction in life is arrived at
once this highest good is attained. Nothing else
is sought after and desired once this self-
sufficient goal is achieved, since this is already
considered as the best possible good in life.
Again, in the example given above, the goal of
remembering the lessons in the course is not
yet the best possible good because a person
can still seek for other more satisfying goals in
her life.
So what is the highest goal for Aristotle? What goal is
both final and self-sufficient? It is interesting to note
that for Aristotle, the question can only be
adequately answered by older individuals because
they have gone through enormous and challenging
life experiences which helped them gain a wealth of
knowledge on what the ultimate purpose of a person
is. According to Aristotle, older individuals would
agree that the highest purpose and the ultimate
good of man is happiness, or for the Greeks,
eudaimonia. Aristotle says:
(Now, such a thing happiness, above all else, is
held to be; for this we choose always for itself
and never for the sake of something else, but
honor, pleasure, reason, and every virtue we
choose indeed for themselves (for if nothing
resulted from them we should still choose each
of them), but we choose them also for the sake
of happiness, judging that by means of them
we shall be happy. Happiness, on the other
hand, no one chooses for the sake of these, nor,
in general, for anything other than itself,)
One can therefore say that happiness seems to fit the first
criterion of being the final end of a human being. For it is
clear that conditions for having wealth, power, and pleasure
are not chosen for themselves but for the sake of being a
means to achieve happiness one accumulates wealth, for
example, she would want to have not just richness but also
power and other desirable things as well, such as honor and
pleasures. But all of these ends are ultimately for the sake of
the final end which is happiness. In itself, happiness seems to
be the final end and the highest good of a person since no
other superior end is still being desired for
Aristotle continues in saying that happiness is also the self-
sufficient end. He says:
(Let us examine this question, however, on another
occasion; the self-sufficient we now define as that
which when isolated makes life desirable and
lacking in nothing and such we think happiness to
be: and further we think it most desirable of all
things, without being counted as one good thing
among others-if it were so counted, it would clearly
be made more desirable by the addition of even the
least of goods; for that which is added becomes an
excess of goods, and of goods, the greater is always
more desirable.)
Happiness for Aristotle is the only self-sufficient
aim that one can aspire for. No amount of wealth
or power can be more fulfilling than having
achieved the condition of happiness. One can
imagine a life of being wealthy, powerful, and
experiencing pleasurable feelings and yet, such life
is still not satisfying without happiness. Once
happiness is achieved, things such as wealth, power,
and pleasurable feelings just give value-added
benefits in life. The true measure of well-being for
Aristotle is not by means of richness or fame but by
the condition of having attained a happy life.
Even though older individuals agree that happiness is
the highest end and good that humans aspire for,
there are various opinions on what specifically is the
nature of the ultimate telos of a person. One is that
happiness is attached with having wealth and power.
Others associate happiness with feelings that are
pleasurable. Some take nobler things like honor and
other ideals as constitutive of happiness. For
Aristotle, arguing for or against every opinion proves
to be a futile attempt to arrive at the nature of
happiness. Instead, Aristotle shows that one can
arrive at the ultimate good by doing one's function
well.
How does a person arrive at her highest good?
According to Aristotle, if an individual's action
can achieve the highest good, then one must
investigate how she functions which enables
her to achieve her ultimate purpose. If she
performs her function well, then she is
capable of arriving at happiness. Aristotle then
proceeds with discussing the function of
human beings to distinguish one person's
activity from other beings. How does a human
being function which sets her apart from the
rest?
For Aristotle, what defines human beings is her function or
activity of reason. The function makes her different from
the rest of beings. Aristotle expresses this clearly:
What then can this be? Life seems to be common even to
plants, but we are seeking what is peculiar to man. Let us
exclude, therefore, the life of nutrition and growth. Next
there would be a life of perception, but it also seems to be
common even to the horse, the ox, and every animal. There
remains, then, an active life of the element that has a
rational principle; of this, one part has such a principle in
the sense of being obedient to one, the other in the sense of
possessing one and exercising thought.
if the function of a human being is simply
to do the act of taking in food in order to
sustain her life and continue living, then
what makes her different from plants?
Also, if the function of a human being is
to do the act of perceiving things, then
what makes her different from animals?
What defines a person therefore is her function or activity of
reason. A person's action to be considered as truly human must
be an act that is always in accordance to reason. The function
of a human being is to act following the dictates of her reason.
Any person for that matter utilizes her reason but Aristotle
further says that a person cannot only perform her function but
she can also perform it well. A dancer, for example, becomes
different from a chef because of her function to dance while
the chef's is to cook. Any dancer can dance but what makes her
distinct from an excellent dancer is that the latter dances very
well. The same principle applies to human beings. What
distinguishes a good person from other human beings is her
rational activity that is performed well or excellently. A good
individual therefore stands closer to meeting the conditions of
happiness because her actions are of a higher purpose.
Aristotle says:
Now, if the function of man is an activity of the soul which follows or
implies a rational principle, and if we say "a so-and-so" and "a good so-
and-so have a function which is the same in kind, for example, a lyre
player and a good lyre player, and so without qualification in all cases,
eminence in respect of goodness being added to the name of the
function (for the function of lyre player is to play the lyre, and that of
a good lyre player is to do so -well): if this is the case, (and we state
the function of man to be a certain kind of life, and this to be an
activity or actions of the soul implying a rational principle, and the
function of a good man to be the good and noble performance of
these, and if any action is well performed when it is performed in
accordance with the appropriate excellence: if this is the case) human
good turns out to be activity of soul in accordance to virtue, and if
there is more than one virtue, in accordance with the best and most
complete.?
The local saying "Madaling maging tao,
mahirap magpakatao" can be understood in
the light of Aristotle's thoughts on the function
of a good person. Any human being can
perform the activity of reason; thus, being
human is achievable. However, a good human
being strives hard in doing an activity in an
excellent way. Therefore, the task of being
human becomes more difficult because doing
such activity well takes more effort on the
part of the person.