In Nicomachean Ethics, the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle attempts to determine the best possible way a person can live their life. He’s not trying to explain the best way to deal with any given situation—there are far too many possible factors in life for that to be practical. Instead, Aristotle aims to provide a general overview of what an ideal life is and how people can achieve it.
In this guide, we’ll explore Aristotle’s views on what a good life is and how we can achieve it. We’ll break down his arguments into the following sections:
Aristotle begins his project by defining a good life as a happy life. To explain how he arrives at this definition, we’ll go through the following two points:
Happiness, says Aristotle, is the goal of life. He arrives at this conclusion by examining the nature of human action. Aristotle claims that the purpose of all human actions is achieving some kind of good—that is, we do things because we think they are the “right” or “best” thing to do in a given circumstance. However, these “goods” exist in a hierarchy: If the reason we do action A is so that we can then do action B, it follows that action B is better than action A—action A is just a means to an end.
For example, Lina works at a shoe store. The reason she works there is so she can pay her rent. Therefore, paying rent is a higher good for Lina than working at a shoe store.
Aristotle concludes that the top of the hierarchy of “goods” is a means that is also an end—something that we want for its own sake. This ultimate good, he argues, is happiness. Since happiness is the highest good, the reason for all action inevitably leads back to it. If you ask someone why they want to be happy, they can’t and won’t provide another, greater reason. Because happiness is the ultimate good, it follows that a good life is a happy life and vice versa.
For example, Lina wants to pay rent because she wants a place to live. She wants a place to live because it provides her with safety and shelter. She wants safety and shelter because it allows her to live a happier life. She wants a happy life for its own sake, not because it will get her something else.
(Shortform note: “Happiness” is the common translation of the Greek “eudaimonia,” though eudaimonia doesn’t perfectly match a modern conception of happiness. Instead, eudaimonia represents a sort of flourishing—a life well-lived. It’s not a temporary emotion, but rather a long-term sense of contentment or purpose.)
Psychology and Aristotelian Happiness
Modern psychological research supports the connection between doing things for their own sake and living a happy, fulfilling life. In Flow, psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi claims that a major component of happiness is “autotelic” activities: things we do for their own sake because we get some kind of enjoyment or satisfaction out of them. However, while Aristotle argues that virtuous activities like acting ethically are the only truly autotelic acts (a point that we’ll discuss later in the guide), Csikszentmihalyi argues that many different activities (chess, running, dancing, and so on) can be autotelic—as long as you enjoy that activity for its own sake.
Aristotle concedes that many people agree that happiness is the goal of human life—the real challenge is defining happiness. He defines happiness as rational activity aligned with virtue. To explain this definition, we’ll look at each of its parts: reason, virtue, and activity.
Aristotle claims that to judge how good something is, you need to know its “defining activity”: what it (and only it) does. For example: Saying someone is a “good” violin player is a judgment of their ability to play the violin—the activity that a violin player (and only a violin player) does.
Reason (the ability to think logically and make choices based on that logic) is the defining activity of humans. All of our other actions aren’t unique to us. To list a few: Our ability to move, reproduce, fulfill basic needs, or perceive the world around us are also things that other animals (and in some cases, plants) can do.
However, no other animal or plant can think logically or make logical decisions. Humans (and only humans) can do that. This makes reasoning our defining activity, and, therefore, the standard we can use to judge how good a human is. A good human is good at reasoning. A good human, by definition, lives a good life—and a good life is a happy life. Therefore, reason is necessary for happiness.
Reason as the Goal of Human Life
Aristotle’s Metaphysics provides context for his argument that everything has a “defining activity.” In Metaphysics, Aristotle explains that everything has four “causes” that define it:
Material cause: what the thing is made out of. For example, the material cause of a clock is the metal and glass it consists of.
Efficient cause: how the thing came into being. For example, the efficient cause of a clock is the clockmaker that built it.
Formal cause: the shape or structure of a thing. For example, the formal cause of a clock is the design of its gears, face, and hands.
Final cause: what the thing exists for—its end or goal. For example, the final cause of a clock is to tell time.
Aristotle claims that the final cause is the most important—it provides the purpose behind every other cause. For example, a clockmaker (the efficient cause) gathers metal and glass (the material cause) and shapes them into gears, a face, and hands (the formal cause) all so he can create a clock that tells time (the final cause).
Therefore, to define humans (and then define a good human life) Aristotle says he must find our final cause—what we exist to do. This must be what we uniquely do—a non-unique activity won’t specifically define humans and a good human life. For example, all living beings reproduce. Therefore, we can say that a human with 10 children is a good living thing—but we can’t say if they are a good human or not. When Aristotle says our final cause is to reason, he both defines what it means to be human and what it means to be a good human—a human reasons, and a good human reasons well.
Aristotle cautions that reasoning alone isn’t enough to be happy—it also must be correct reasoning. Someone who always makes the worst possible decisions won’t live a happy life even though they are using reason (albeit poorly).
What Aristotle means by correct reasoning is reasoning aligned with “virtue.”
(Shortform note: “Virtue” is the typical English translation of the ancient Greek “arete,” which also translates to “excellence.” This means that when Aristotle discusses “reason aligned with virtue,” he’s essentially saying “excellent reasoning.”)
Since “reasoning” means making choices, “reason aligned with virtue” means making the right choices. If we make the right choices in life, it means we’re good at reasoning—and are therefore happy.
Aristotle separates virtue into two main categories:
(Shortform note: Critics note that Aristotle doesn’t explain why moral decisions are the “right” ones to make or how they contribute to a well-lived life. For example, Aristotle suggests that being courageous and doing courageous things is the “right” thing to do, but never actually explains why or how it makes a person happy. Some scholars suggest that Aristotle believes these questions are beyond the scope of ethics; others claim that his intended audience is people who are already morally virtuous. This ambiguity contrasts with intellectual virtues, which clearly benefit us and lead us to make the “right” decisions. For example, a carpenter with the virtue of technical knowledge will make good carpentry decisions and create better furniture.)
Reasoning aligned with virtue still isn’t enough for happiness—a person also must consistently act on this reasoning. Goodness, explains Aristotle, can’t exist separate from objects or actions—it makes no sense to call a carpenter good if he’s never built anything, for example. Therefore, action is necessary for a good life.
However, one or a few actions isn’t enough. Aristotle claims happiness requires consistently good actions over an entire lifetime (which we’ll discuss further later in the guide).
(Shortform note: By claiming that goodness can’t exist separately on its own, Aristotle is arguing against his teacher Plato. In works like the Republic, Plato argues that there’s an ideal, eternal “form of the good” that exists independent of anything else. This form of the good explains why any particular thing is good—it’s a universal standard to define goodness. Aristotle has multiple arguments against the form of the good, mostly centered on the idea that a universal definition of goodness is too broad. By arguing that happiness comes from specific actions, Aristotle insists that a good (and therefore happy) human isn’t one that exists according to an abstract ideal of goodness and, therefore, argues against Plato’s theory.)
Aristotle concludes that happiness comes from consistently making the right choices over the course of a lifetime (rational activity aligned with virtue). Then, he discusses how to make the right choices—in other words, how we can be virtuous. The rest of the guide consists of this discussion. We’ll start with moral virtue, and then discuss intellectual virtue later on.
Part 2 of our guide explains Aristotle’s views on moral virtue: ethical principles that define the “right” things to do in our social interactions. First, we’ll define what it means to be a morally virtuous person. Then, we’ll explain how someone can develop moral virtue.
Aristotle claims people are morally virtuous when they habitually do virtuous actions for virtuous reasons. Both of these components are essential to virtue.
Moral virtue is the result of habitual virtuous action. People aren’t born naturally virtuous, so it's something they have to learn—and people learn through repeated action. It makes no sense to call someone virtuous if they don’t consistently do virtuous things, just as it makes no sense to call someone a great chef just because they occasionally make toast. In addition, Aristotle argues that there aren’t simple, universal rules someone can follow to be virtuous. Instead, a virtuous person must determine what is appropriate for each individual situation and then do it.
For example, Frank is morally virtuous. Growing up, his parents taught him to help those who can’t help themselves—a tenet that Frank has always lived by. One day, Frank sees a child who’s trapped at the bottom of a well. He immediately grabs a nearby rope and helps the child up, then gets the child home. Frank isn’t morally virtuous just because he saved the child, though (a single virtuous act)—he’s morally virtuous because he always helps those in need (he habitually acts virtuously).
(Shortform note: A common criticism of Aristotle’s moral philosophy (and other philosophies like it) is that it doesn’t help people decide what to do. Instead, critics argue that Aristotle only explains what people should be (courageous, patient, and so on). In a real-life situation involving an ethical decision, this becomes a problem. While “Treat others how you want to be treated” can help you make a decision, “Be virtuous” will not. Defenders of Aristotle claim that there’s not much of a difference between a rule that says what to do and a rule that says what to be—for example, Aristotle saying, “Be honest” easily translates to, “Do not lie.” From this perspective, Aristotle does offer guidelines for action—vague ones, maybe, but guidelines nonetheless.)
For a person to be virtuous, they have to do virtuous actions for the right reasons. People learn to be virtuous through habit—and they won’t learn or create habits from accidentally or unintentionally doing virtuous things. Therefore, virtuous acts are intentional, voluntary, and done for virtue itself rather than some other benefit.
For example, morally virtuous Frank helps an old woman cross the street because it’s the right thing to do—not because she’ll give him money for it, or because it’ll make him look good in front of his friends.
(Shortform note: Some critics argue that Aristotle defines virtuous people with circular logic. They point out two of his claims: 1) An action is virtuous if it’s what a virtuous person would do, and 2) a person is virtuous when they act in virtuous ways. This tells us nothing about virtue: To understand virtuous actions, we need to understand a virtuous person. To understand a virtuous person, we need to understand virtuous actions. However, others argue that this criticism misinterprets Aristotle. They say he actually makes these two claims: 1) Virtuous people know how to do virtuous actions for virtuous reasons, and 2) a person is virtuous if they do virtuous actions for virtuous reasons. These claims don’t rely on each other and therefore don’t use circular logic.)
Now that we’ve discussed what a morally virtuous person is, we’ll discuss how a person can develop moral virtue through habit. To Aristotle, becoming morally virtuous involves three main components:
People become virtuous by developing specific virtues through habitual action—a person becomes courageous by doing courageous things, for example. However, Aristotle suggests that these virtues can only exist as a happy medium, or “mean.” An overdeveloped or underdeveloped quality isn’t virtuous at all, but rather a vice. For example, someone who has overdeveloped courage is reckless, while someone with underdeveloped courage is cowardly. Therefore, becoming virtuous requires proper development of individual virtues, practicing them in the right amount so they aren’t overdeveloped or underdeveloped.
(Shortform note: Critics of Aristotle argue that not every ethical decision can be measured in terms of “too much” or “too little” of a certain virtue. For example, morally virtuous Frank is on a jury and has to determine if a criminal is guilty or not. In this instance, Frank has to choose one option or the other—he’s not deciding “how much” of a virtue is appropriate for the situation. Defenders of Aristotle argue that every decision does involve finding a mean—it just sometimes requires a broader view of an ethical situation. For example, Frank might have to decide the right amount of generosity toward the accused who’s lived a hard life, or he might have to decide the right amount of courage if he has to go against the other jurors.)
Becoming virtuous also involves “training” a person to develop a clear sense of what’s emotionally pleasant or painful—what they like and dislike. This is because moral virtues deal exclusively with matters of pleasure and pain. These emotions are the lens through which people understand actions and their consequences: For example, random acts of violence are immoral because they cause pain for no reason.
To become morally virtuous, a person must learn to take pleasure in virtuous things and to feel pain at vice or wrongdoing. This process aligns the rational and emotional parts of themselves: The rational part knows virtuous things are good, and the emotional part enjoys and desires virtuous things because it’s been conditioned to take pleasure in them. Therefore, a morally virtuous person doesn’t do virtuous things because of unemotional deliberation—they do virtuous things because it feels good and because they hate what’s immoral.
For example, morally virtuous Frank learns that his landlord is scamming his neighbor Linda. Rationally, he knows that scamming is immoral and that stopping his landlord is the morally virtuous thing to do. Emotionally, he’s mad that the landlord is scamming Linda and desires a just outcome. Frank’s rational response tells him what he should do, and his emotional response inspires him to do it.
(Shortform note: Much like Aristotle, the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus suggests that living a morally virtuous life is pleasurable. However, while Aristotle says pleasure is just a means to the end of living a morally virtuous life, Epicurus argues the opposite—a virtuous life is just a means to the end of feeling pleasure. He claims that moral virtue leads to stable and consistent pleasure, while impulsively fulfilling desires offers temporary pleasures and future pains. For example, a temperate person takes pleasure in a glass of wine, then stops drinking and feels satisfied with their restraint. An indulgent person feels pleasure when they drink two bottles of wine, then makes bad decisions (leading to future pains) and feels horrible the next morning.)
Aristotle suggests that to develop the necessary habits and “training” for virtue, a person needs education from a virtuous teacher starting from childhood. This education begins with imitation: Instead of asking, “What is the virtuous thing to do in this situation?” a student asks, “What would my teacher do in this situation?” A teacher will also recognize the proper “mean” unique to their student: For example, a brave but impulsive student needs to spend more time on moderate actions than courageous actions.
(Shortform note: Some scholars note that Aristotle’s ethics (and other similar systems of “virtue ethics”) is one of the only ethical systems that encourages asking for help. To Aristotle, consulting a morally virtuous person for advice is crucial for developing moral virtue yourself. Other ethical systems like utilitarianism or Kantianism don’t mention the idea of asking for help or guidance from a moral person. Instead, these systems only focus on providing rules that apply to every possible ethical dilemma. Scholars suggest that because of this, Aristotle is one of the few philosophers who accounts for a major factor in real-life ethical decision-making: asking people you respect what they would do in your situation.)
After discussing what moral virtues are and how to achieve them, Aristotle then turns his attention to intellectual virtues: different types of human knowledge. He eventually concludes that the best of all virtues (and therefore virtue most important for a happy human life) is the intellectual virtue of wisdom.
(Shortform note: While Aristotle says here that wisdom is the best virtue, he partially amends this in his later work Politics. There, he argues that different kinds of people have different “best virtues.” To Aristotle, women, children, and those unable to reason (like the mentally disabled) all have ideal virtues of obedience. An excellent child obeys their parents (developing moral virtue by mimicking virtuous adults) until they become adults with different standards of excellence. Aristotle saw women and those unable to reason as natural inferiors to rational men—therefore, their ideal virtue was to obey their “superiors.” He implies that these groups can’t live happy lives, since he says here that human happiness requires wisdom.)
Part 3 of our guide explains Aristotle’s views on wisdom and happiness by exploring the following:
The intellectual virtues consist of the different kinds of human knowledge. There are multiple intellectual virtues, including technical knowledge like an art or craft, and social knowledge like judgments of character. Wisdom consists of philosophical knowledge—which Aristotle claims is the best kind of knowledge.
This is because philosophical knowledge is the most universal and stable type of knowledge—the best way to make a table or persuade a friend will change depending on all kinds of circumstances, but a math problem always has the same answer.
(Shortform note: To understand Aristotle’s argument here, it helps to understand how he defines philosophy. Aristotle (and all ancient Greek philosophers) considered science and mathematics to be part of philosophy. They put them in one category because these subjects all use logic to study the nature of the world. In fact, this was normal until relatively recently—scholars began to think of science and philosophy as separate fields in the 19th century. This context clarifies Aristotle’s argument: He uses mathematics as an example to argue that all philosophical knowledge is constant and universal.)
In addition, philosophical knowledge is the highest form of knowledge in the hierarchy of goods. People pursue philosophy just for the sake of virtue (the virtue of wisdom, specifically) and the happiness it brings. On the other hand, people pursue other kinds of knowledge for separate goods. For example, someone studies carpentry to make furniture, or studies rhetoric to run for political office—whereas they study philosophy just for the sake of gaining wisdom.
This means other intellectual virtues are simply a means to an end—and are therefore lesser goods (as we discussed in Aristotle’s hierarchy of good). Since wisdom is an end in itself, Aristotle concludes that it’s the best intellectual virtue for attaining happiness.
(Shortform note: Aristotle’s teacher Plato also argues that philosophy is the best form of human knowledge for happiness, though his reasoning as to why is different. In his Symposium, Plato suggests that happiness in part relies on a kind of immortality—the longer we live, the longer we are happy. Plato then claims that creating philosophy gets humans as close as they can to immortality, since a great philosophical work touches on eternal truths and outlives its creator by many years. Plato says people pursue philosophy not just for its own sake or for the sake of happiness but also for the sake of immortality. On the other hand, Aristotle doesn’t seem to consider any kind of immortality important for human happiness.)
To prove that wisdom is the best virtue overall, Aristotle then explains how wisdom is superior to moral virtues. He claims wisdom is superior because it’s self-sufficient and divine.
Morally virtuous actions require situations, things, or other people—and contemplative activities require none of this. A person can contemplate whenever they want to without needing anything else.
This is not only useful in a practical sense but also suggests reason sits higher on the hierarchy of goods than moral virtues. Because moral virtues relate to other people and things, they necessarily lead to some other good—for example, moderation might lead to physical health, and courage might lead to honor and respect from others. However, people pursue philosophical inquiry for the sake of wisdom and nothing else. And as Aristotle shows in the hierarchy of good, actions done for their own sake are better than actions done for other benefits.
(Shortform note: Many critics contest Aristotle’s claim that wisdom is self-sufficient. They argue that using wisdom requires resources and working with others—Aristotle even acknowledges that happiness requires prosperity (which we’ll discuss later) as well as relationships with other people. After all, it’s hard to imagine how someone could philosophize with nobody to learn from or no free time. Some defenders of Aristotle argue that “self-sufficiency” actually refers to the goal of the activity. From this point of view, a life of philosophy isn’t self-sufficient because it requires no people or things—instead, it’s self-sufficient because its goal (philosophical knowledge and happiness) exists separate from any person or object.)
In addition to the self-sufficiency of wisdom, Aristotle suggests that philosophical inquiry is a divine activity: It’s the activity of the gods and is therefore superior to all strictly human activities. Aristotle says the gods are virtuous by their very nature, as they are perfect. But as we’ve discussed, virtue requires action—so Aristotle must determine what actions make the gods virtuous.
Aristotle argues that morally virtuous actions can’t be the source of their happiness, as they require interactions nobody would associate with the gods. For example, saying the gods are moderate implies that perfect divine beings have physical desires that they must restrain.
Intellectual virtues besides wisdom also involve other objects or people—and so it wouldn’t make sense to say the gods act on those virtues. For example, perfect divine beings don’t spend time acting on their technical knowledge of carpentry to build tables and chairs—it’s ridiculous to imagine an all-powerful being needing a chair to sit on or sell.
Since no other moral or intellectual virtues make sense to describe the activities of the gods, Aristotle concludes that the gods are virtuous because they act in accordance with the virtue of wisdom—that is, they contemplate. Therefore, wisdom is the most divine virtue and contemplation is the most divine activity. And since the gods are perfectly virtuous, perfectly happy, and they only contemplate, Aristotle concludes that a perfectly happy life is a life of activity aligned with the virtue of wisdom (contemplation).
(Shortform note: Aristotle’s conception of the gods doesn’t fully match what you might know as Greek mythology: the stories of gods like Zeus and Athena told by Homer and Hesiod. In these mythological works, the gods are imperfect and prone to the same vices as humans—vices like jealousy, rage, and pettiness. In addition, they also frequently interact with each other and with objects in the world—so from a Homeric perspective, the gods can and do act on virtues besides wisdom. However, Aristotle strongly disagrees with the Homeric view of the gods. He generally talks about the gods as perfectly divine ideals, rather than as flawed and emotional beings. Aristotle uses this idea of the gods in his argument that they only act on wisdom.)
After Aristotle defines the perfectly happy lives of the gods (lives that consist entirely of contemplation), he explains how this definition informs happy human lives. In this section, we’ll explain Aristotle’s descriptions of the following:
An ideal happy life consists only of contemplation—however, that’s not realistic for any human life. Instead, Aristotle suggests that the human capacity to philosophize (and therefore be happy) exists somewhere between animals and gods:
Humans can reason, but unlike the gods, they can’t spend their entire lives on philosophy. All humans by nature will spend some time meeting physical needs and interacting socially with others—eating, sleeping, and fulfilling obligations to friends, family, and community.
The social nature of humans also means that even in a contemplative life, a person must be morally virtuous: Humans inevitably interact with each other, and moral virtues are the best possible guidelines for those interactions. Therefore, the happiest possible human is morally virtuous in their interactions, meets their physical needs, and spends as much time as they can on philosophical inquiry.
(Shortform note: Aristotle makes a sudden shift here from discussing the ideal and happy human life to discussing the happiest possible human life—a shift that seems to restrict or even prevent the possibility of human happiness. To resolve this confusion, some scholars argue that Aristotle only mentions these limitations to avoid political consequences. From this perspective, Aristotle separates the perfect lives of the gods from the “imperfect” lives of humans to appease the dominant political and religious beliefs of Athenians. Therefore, these scholars claim that Aristotle doesn’t seriously argue that humans can’t live happy lives or that a happy life is almost impossible. Instead, he just makes that claim to avoid censorship or punishment.)
The limitations of a happy life also mean that a person must have certain life circumstances to be capable of happiness. In particular, Aristotle notes two requirements of a happy life:
1) Prosperity: To be happy, a person needs some level of prosperity and wealth—enough that they have leisure time for philosophical inquiry and can easily meet their physical needs. This also means a life defined by great tragedy or misfortune cannot be happy. While a happy person can deal with some tragedy and misfortune in a virtuous way, too much will prevent them from pursuing the activities necessary for a happy life.
(Shortform note: Historical and cultural context helps explain Aristotle’s views on the necessity of prosperity for happiness. Fourth century BCE Athens had three main social classes: 1) Citizens, free Athenian-born men who could participate politically and often had wealth and power; 2) metics, free people who weren’t born in Athens and couldn’t participate politically, but could still gain wealth and influence; and 3) slaves, people treated as property who couldn’t participate politically and often had little to no rights or belongings. By claiming prosperity is necessary for a happy life, Aristotle is likely making an observation about the only people in ancient Athens that could do philosophy—men who were citizens or wealthy metics (like Aristotle himself).)
2) Longevity: A happy life is a long life. A happy life is a good life, and for a person to be as good as possible they need to consistently do good things over the course of an entire human lifespan. Therefore, Aristotle suggests that people who die young can’t achieve happiness—they have less time to live and therefore will do fewer good acts. This doesn’t mean people who die young necessarily live bad or miserable lives, but it does mean that they weren’t able to achieve the best possible (and therefore happiest possible) human life.
(Shortform note: To understand why Aristotle says people who die young can’t be happy, consider his overall project. Aristotle believes that everything has a telos, or ultimate goal. Collectively, this adds up to a teleological view of the world, where everything in existence has a natural and intended function. In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle tries to discover how humans can best accomplish their telos—this informs his entire definition of a good life. From this perspective, it’s clear why longevity is necessary for happiness: The fact that humans have a defined lifespan means that we are naturally meant to live for that entire period. Therefore, the best human life (which best fulfills our natural functions) lasts for that full amount of time.)
Reflect on your virtuous qualities and actions and how they align with Aristotle’s ethics.
Describe a situation where you felt like you did the morally right thing. (For example, Frank threw a rope down a well to save a child trapped at the bottom.)
Did you feel “happiness” or a deep sense of satisfaction when you did the right thing in that situation? Do you still feel satisfied about it? Explain your answer.
Consider some of the worse alternatives you could have chosen in that situation. Do those alternatives have “too much” or “too little” of an otherwise virtuous quality? (For example, Frank could have had “too much” courage and jumped down into the well, trapping himself.)
Do you feel satisfied when you study philosophical works like the Nicomachean Ethics? Do you feel like reading philosophy makes you a better person? Explain your answer.