Module 6
Module 6
This module introduces concepts from Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics and examines issues in
contemporary science and technology using the same philosophical lens. It tackles the
important Aristotelian concepts of eudaimonia and arête, and how these can be used to
c. To examine contemporary issues and come up with innovative and creative solutions to
aims to lead a good life what constitutes a happy and contented life varies from to person.
subscribe to a unified standard of which to tease out the meaning of ‘the good life.' Thus, the
prospect of a standard of the good life – one that resonates across unique human
experiences – is inviting.
To answer the question, "Are we living the good life?,” necessary reflection must be made
on two things: first, what standard could be used to define the good life?' Second, how
can the standard serve as a guide toward living the good life in the midst of scientific
C. S. Lewis posited that "science must be guided by some ethical basis that is not dictated
Aristotle, who lived from 384 to 322 BC, is probably the most important ancient Greek
philosopher and scientist. He was a student of Plato, who was then a student of Socrates.
ten books. Originally, they were lecture notes written on scrolls when he taught at the
Lyceum. It is widely believed that the lecture notes were compiled by or were dictated to
one of Aristotle’s sons, Nichomacus. Alternatively, it is believed that the work was dictated
The Nichomachean Ethics, is a treatise on the nature of moral life and human happiness
based on the unique essesnce of human nature. The NE is particularly useful in defining
Everyone has a definition of what good is. However, although everyone aims to achieve
that which is good, Aristotle posited two types of good. In NE Book 2 Chapter 2, (NE 2:2),
Aristotle explained that every actions aim at some good. However, some actions aims at
an instrumental good while aim at an intrinsic good. He made it clear that the ultimate
good is better than the instrumental good for the latter is good as a mean to achieving
something else or some other end while the former is good in itself.
What then is the ultimate good? Based on the contrast between e types of good, one
One might think that pleasure is the ultimate good. One aims for pleasure in the food they
eat or in the experiences they immerse themselves into. Yet, while pleasure is an important
human need, it cannot be the ultimate good. First, it is transitory-it passes. One may have
been pleased with the food they had for lunch, but he or she will be hungry again or will
want something else after a while. Second, pleasure does not encompass all aspects of
life. One may be pleased with an opportunity to travel but that may not make him or her
feel good about leaving, say, his or her studies or the relationship he or she has been
struggling with.
Others might think that wealth is a potential candidate for the ultimate good, but a
critique of wealth would prove otherwise. Indeed, many, if not most, aim to be financially
hear people say that they aim to be wealthy insofar as it would help them achieve some
other goals. Elsewhere, it is also common to hear stories about people who have become
very wealthy but remain, by and large, unhappy with the lives they lead. In this sense,
wealth is just an intermediate good—that is, only instrumental. It is not the uk good
because it is not self-sufficient and does not stop one from ain for some other greater'
good.
Another candidate for the ultimate good is fame and honor. Many to be people today
seem to be motivated by a desire to be known famous. Others strive for honor and
recognition. This is reflected by those people who use social media to acquire large virtual
following on the internet and wish to gain a foothold on the benefits that fame brings.
Many people act according to how they think they will be admired and appreciated by
other people. However, these cannot constitute the ultimate good, simply because they
are based on the perception of others. Fame and honor can never be good in
themselves. If one's definition of the good life is being popular or respected, then the good
Unlike pleasure, wealth, fame, and honor, happiness is the ultimate good. In the
Aristotelian sense, happiness is “living well and doing well” (NE 1:4). Among the Greeks, this
is known as eudaimonia, from the root words eu, meaning good, and daimon, meaning
spirit. Combining the root words, eudaimonia means happiness or welfare. More
hallmarks of eudaimonia, namely virtue and excellence (NE 1:7). Thus, happiness in the
transcends all aspects of life for it is about living well and doing well in whatever one does.
C. Eudaimonia: Uniquely Human?
achieved only through a rationally directed life. Aristotle's notion of a tripartite soul as
summarized in Table 1 illustrates a nested hierarchy of the functions and activities of the
soul. The degrees and functions of the soul are nested, such that the one which has a
Finally, on the rational degree, only humans are capable of theoretical and practical
functions.
Following this, humans possess the nutritive, sensitive, and rational degrees of the soul.
More importantly, only humans are capable of a life guided by reason. Because this is so,
happiness, too, it is uniquely human function for it can only be achieved through a
Eudaimonia is what defines the good life. To live a good life is to live a happy life. For
Arête, a Greek term, is defined as “excellence of any kind” and can also mean “moral
virtue.” A virtue is what makes one function well. Aristotle suggested two types of virtue:
experience. Key intellectual virtues are wisdom, which guides ethical behavior, and
and understanding are achieved through formal and non-formal means. Intellectual
virtues are acquired through self-taught knowledge and skills as much as those knowledge
Moral virtue or virtue of character is achieved through habitual practice. Some key moral
virtues are generosity, temperance, and courage. Aristotle explained that although the
capacity for intellectual virtue is innate, it is brought into completion only by practice. It is
by repeatedly being unselfish that one develops the virtue of generosity. It Is by repeatedly
resisting and foregoing every inviting opportunity that one develops the virtue of
the face of danger that one develops the virtue of courage. By and large, moral virtue is
like a skill. A skill is acquired only through repeated practice. Everyone is capable of
learning how to play the guitar because everyone has an innate capacity for intellectual
virtue, but not everyone acquires it because only those who devote time and practice
If one learns that eating too much fatty foods is bad for the health, he or she has to make
it a habit to stay away from this type of food because health contributes to living well and
doing well. If one believes that too much use of social media is detrimental to human
relationships and productivity, he or she must regulate his or her use of social media and
deliberately spend more time with friends, and family, and work than in virtual platform. If
one understands the enormous damage to the environment that plastic materials bring,
he or she must repeatedly forego the next plastic item he or she could do away with.
Both intellectual virtue and moral virtue should be in accordance with reason to achieve
eudaimonia. Indifference with these virtues, for reasons that are only for one's
between two extremes is a requisite of virtue. This balance is a mean of excess not in the
circumstances, and the right emotional response in every experience (NE 2:2; 2:6).
Consider the virtue of courage. Courage was earlier defined as displaying the right action
and emotional response in the face of danger. The virtue of courage is ruined by an
excess of the needed emotional and proper action to address a particular situation. A
person who does not properly assess the danger and is totally without fear may develop
needed emotion and proper action. When one overthinks of a looming danger, that he or
she becomes too fearful and incapable of acting on the problem, he or she develops the
vice of cowardice.
Putting everything in perspective, the good life in the sense of eudaimonia is the state of
being happy, healthy, and prosperous in the way one thinks, lives, and acts. The path to
the good life consists of the virtues of thought and character, which are relative mediators
between the two extremes of excess and deficiency. In this way, the good life is
One could draw parallels between moving toward the good life and moving toward
further progress and development in science and technology. In appraising the goodness
of the next medical procedure, the new social media trend, the latest mobile device, or
the upcoming technology for food safety, one must be guided by Aristotelian virtues.
Science and technology can be ruined by under- or over-appreciation of the scope and
function it plays in the pursuit of the uniquely human experience of happiness. Refusing
to entirely dictate reason and action without any regard for ethical and moral standards.
By imposing on science and technology an ethical standard that is not dictated by itself,
as C. S. Lewis proposed, not only will scientific advancement and technological
Activity
Instructions: Compare and contrast each pair of terms related to Aristotle’s Nichomachean
Ethics.
2. Pleasure – Happiness
3. Virtue – Vice