Nicomachean Ethics (Modern, Updated Translation)

Book Summary

Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, written around 350 BCE, represents one of the most influential works in moral philosophy, offering a comprehensive examination of human happiness, virtue, and the good life. The work, composed of ten books, begins with the fundamental premise that all human activities aim at some good, with the highest good being happiness (eudaimonia).

In exploring the nature of happiness, Aristotle argues that it cannot be found in pleasure, wealth, or honor alone, but rather in living according to virtue throughout a complete life. He defines happiness as the activity of the soul in accordance with virtue, emphasizing that it is not a passive state but an active condition. This activity must be performed well and consistently over time, not just in isolated instances.

Aristotle then develops his theory of virtue, describing it as a mean between two extremes. For example, courage is the mean between cowardice and recklessness, generosity between miserliness and wastefulness. However, this mean is not a simple mathematical average but rather the right amount relative to the person and situation. He emphasizes that finding this mean requires practical wisdom (phronesis) developed through experience and habituation.

The work distinguishes between moral virtues, which concern emotions and actions, and intellectual virtues, which involve reasoning. Moral virtues are developed through habit and practice, while intellectual virtues are taught. Aristotle maintains that both types of virtue are necessary for human flourishing. He particularly emphasizes practical wisdom as crucial for determining the right action in specific circumstances.

In discussing specific virtues, Aristotle provides detailed analyses of courage, temperance, generosity, magnificence, magnanimity, proper ambition, gentleness, truthfulness, wittiness, and justice. He examines how each virtue manifests in different situations and what constitutes excess or deficiency in each case. His treatment of justice is particularly extensive, occupying an entire book of the Ethics, where he distinguishes between different types of justice and their applications in society.

Aristotle devotes considerable attention to the concept of friendship (philia), which he sees as essential to the good life. He identifies three types of friendship: those based on utility, pleasure, and virtue. While all forms have their place, he argues that friendship based on virtue is the highest form, as it involves caring for the friend's good for their own sake and contributes to both parties' moral development.

The work also explores the relationship between pleasure and happiness. While Aristotle doesn't equate happiness with pleasure, he argues that proper pleasure accompanies virtuous activity and completes it. He distinguishes between different types of pleasures, arguing that the highest pleasures come from the exercise of our highest faculties in accordance with virtue.

In the final books, Aristotle examines the nature of contemplation (theoria) and its relationship to happiness. He argues that contemplative activity, being the exercise of our highest faculty (reason) in accordance with its proper virtue (wisdom), constitutes the highest form of happiness. However, he acknowledges that such purely contemplative life is difficult to achieve and that a life of moral and political virtue is a worthy second-best.

Throughout the Ethics, Aristotle emphasizes the practical nature of ethics. Unlike theoretical sciences, ethics aims not just at knowledge but at becoming good. He argues that moral knowledge without practical application is useless, and that ethical study should lead to actual improvement in character and behavior.

Aristotle's theory of moral education is also significant, emphasizing the importance of proper upbringing and habituation in developing virtue. He argues that moral education must begin early in life and continue through practice and reflection. The role of the community in moral development is crucial, as virtues are learned and practiced within social contexts.

The Nicomachean Ethics concludes by connecting ethics to politics, suggesting that the study of ethics naturally leads to questions about how to organize society to promote virtue and happiness. This connection reflects Aristotle's view that ethics and politics are closely interrelated, as both concern human flourishing at individual and communal levels.

This comprehensive ethical framework has profoundly influenced Western moral philosophy, particularly in its emphasis on character development, practical wisdom, and the integration of individual and social goods. Its detailed analysis of virtue, happiness, and the good life continues to offer valuable insights for contemporary ethical discussions and personal moral development.

Book Preview (In Modern, Updated English)

Chapter 1

Every skill and every field of knowledge that can be taught, as well as every action and moral decision, is believed to aim at some good. That's why a common and fairly accurate way to describe the ultimate good is "that which everything aims for."

There is clearly a difference in the goals we aim for: in some cases, the goal is the action itself, while in others, it's a result or product that comes from the action. When there are results beyond the actions, those results are generally better than the actions themselves. Also, since there are many different actions, skills, and fields of knowledge, there are also many different goals: for example, the goal of medicine is health; the goal of shipbuilding is a ship; the goal of military strategy is victory; and the goal of managing a household is wealth.

In any actions, skills, or sciences that fall under a specific category (like how making bridles and all things related to horse equipment fall under horsemanship; and horsemanship, along with everything related to war, falls under the military art; and so on for other categories), the goals of the main skills are more important than the goals of the skills under them. This is because the smaller skills are pursued to achieve the goals of the main skills.

In this comparison, it doesn't matter whether the actions themselves are the goals, or if there's something more beyond them, like in the arts and sciences we just talked about.

Since there is one ultimate goal we aim for in everything we do, which we want for its own sake, and we desire everything else to help us reach this goal; and since we don't always choose things with another goal in mind (because if we did, we'd never stop and our desires would never be satisfied), this ultimate goal must be the chief good, meaning the best thing of all.

Surely, when it comes to real life and behavior, knowing about this is very important. Like archers aiming at a target, we are more likely to do the right thing if we know what we're aiming for. So, we should try to explain, at least in a basic way, what this is and which sciences or skills it is the goal of.

One would naturally think that the ultimate goal is the most important and all-encompassing one. This is what politics clearly represents because it decides which sciences should be part of communities, what individuals should learn, and how skilled they should become. We also see that important skills like military strategy, managing a household, and public speaking fall under politics. Since politics uses all other practical sciences and sets rules for what people should do and avoid, its ultimate goal must include the goals of all the others, making it the ultimate good for humans. Even if this ultimate good is the same for both individuals and communities, the good of the community is obviously greater and more complete to discover and maintain. Achieving this for just one person would be satisfying, but doing it for an entire nation or communities in general would be more noble and godlike.

These are the topics our discussion will cover, which are related to politics. I believe I will have explained them well if they are made as clear as the topic allows. We shouldn't expect the same level of precision in every discussion, just like we don't expect it in every craft. The ideas of nobility and justice, which politics deals with, can vary and be misunderstood to the point that some people think they only exist because we agree they do, not because they are naturally real. Similarly, things we consider good can also be misunderstood, because they can sometimes cause harm. For example, some people have been ruined by wealth, and others by bravery.

We should be satisfied, then, when talking about these topics and using the information we have, to explain the truth in a rough and basic way. In other words, since we are discussing general topics and using general information, our conclusions will also be general. People should understand what we say in this way: an educated person will look for accuracy in each subject as much as the topic allows. It's clearly just as silly to accept a mathematician who tries to convince without proving, as it is to expect strict logical proof from a speaker or writer who uses persuasion.

Each person judges well what they know, and they are a good judge of those things. So, for each specific subject, the person who has been taught about it is a good judge. In a broader sense, someone with general knowledge and education is a good judge overall.

Therefore, a young person is not the best student for studying moral philosophy because they lack experience in life's actions, which is what this subject is all about. Also, since young people often follow their emotions, they might listen but not really understand or benefit from it, because the goal is to apply what they learn, not just to know it.

I don't make a difference between being young in age and being young in attitude and behavior. The issue I'm talking about isn't directly because of age, but because of living impulsively and chasing after every new thing that comes up. For people like this, the knowledge becomes useless, just like it does for those who can't control themselves well. However, for those who shape their desires and actions based on reason, having knowledge about these things can be very beneficial.

Let's start with a brief introduction about three things: the student, the attitude we should have when reading these observations, and the goal we aim to achieve.

Chapter 2

Now, going back to what we started with, since all knowledge and choices aim for some kind of good, what is the good that politics aims for? Or, put another way, what is the highest good that we can achieve through our actions?

When it comes to the word itself, most people agree: they call it happiness. Both regular people and the more thoughtful ones think that "living well" and "doing well" mean the same as "being happy." But when it comes to what happiness actually is, people disagree, and regular folks don't always see it the same way as wise people do. Some say it's something obvious and easy to see, like pleasure, wealth, or honor. Different people think it's different things, and sometimes the same person changes their mind. For example, when someone is sick, they might say happiness is health; when they're poor, they might say it's wealth. People often admire those who speak in fancy ways they don't fully understand. Others believe happiness is something separate from these things, something that makes all these good things good in the first place.

Going through all the opinions might be a bit pointless, so we'll just focus on the ones that are most common or seem to make some sense.

We shouldn't forget the difference between reasoning from principles and reasoning to principles. Plato also wondered about this and questioned whether the correct path is from principles or towards principles, similar to running on a racecourse from the starting line to the finish line, or the other way around.

Of course, we need to start with what we already know; but there are two types of knowing: what we actually know and what we can potentially know. So, as individuals, we should start with what we actually know. This is why it's important for someone to have good habits if they want to study and understand the principles of goodness, justice, and moral philosophy. A principle is a fact, and if someone understands the fact clearly, they don't need an explanation for it. Someone who has been well-trained either already understands these principles or can learn them easily. But for someone who neither understands nor can learn them, let's listen to what Hesiod has to say about them:

The best person is the one who can understand everything on their own. Next best is someone who can follow good advice from others. But someone who can't think for themselves or learn from others is not helpful at all.

Chapter 3

But let's get back on track.

When people think about the highest good, which is happiness, they often base their ideas on different ways of living. This is what we would expect. Most people, especially those who don't think deeply, believe happiness is about pleasure, so they are satisfied with a life focused on enjoying physical pleasures. There are three main ways of living that people notice: the life of pleasure, the life of social interaction, and the life of thinking and contemplation.

Many people seem to live like slaves, choosing a life similar to that of animals. However, they get some respect because many influential people share the same tastes as Sardanapalus. On the other hand, refined and active people think the goal is honor, as this is often seen as the purpose of social life. But honor is too shallow to be the ultimate goal we are looking for because it depends more on those who give it than on the person who receives it. We naturally feel that the highest good should be something that belongs to us and cannot be easily taken away.

People seem to chase after honor because they want to believe they are good. For example, they want to be honored by wise people, by those who know them, and for their virtues. This shows that, at least in their opinion, virtue is more important than honor. In reality, one might think that this is the goal of living in society. However, this isn't completely satisfying as an ultimate goal. It's possible for a virtuous person to spend their life sleeping or being inactive, or even experiencing great hardships and misfortunes. No one would call a person who lives like this happy, except maybe just to argue a point.

And let this be enough for now, as I have already discussed them in detail in my other writings.

The third way of living is the life of contemplation, which we will explore in the next sections.

The life focused on making money is limiting, and it's clear that wealth isn't the ultimate good we're looking for because it's just a tool for something else. That's why people might think the previously mentioned goals are the right ones, as people are satisfied with them for their own sake. However, it's clear that these aren't the ultimate goals we're searching for either, even though a lot has been said about them. So, that's enough about these topics.

Let's take a closer look at the idea of one Universal Good, which is supposed to be the same in all things. It's important to discuss what this means, even though it's a bit uncomfortable because the people who introduced these ideas are our friends. But it's probably better, and even our duty, to challenge our own ideas if it helps us find the truth, especially since we love wisdom. We care about both our friends and the truth, but we should choose the truth if we have to. The people who came up with this idea of universal forms didn't apply it to things where there is a clear order of importance, like numbers. Goodness is talked about in terms of Substance, Quality, and Relation. Substance, which exists on its own, is more important than something that is just a relation because the latter depends on the former. So, based on their own logic, there can't be a common form for these things.

Next, since "good" is used in many different ways, just like there are different ways of existing, it can't be one single thing that's common to everything. For example, "good" is used to describe substance, like God or intellect; quality, like the virtues; quantity, like the mean; relation, like the useful; time, like opportunity; and place, like abode. Because of this variety, "good" can't be one universal thing that fits into all these categories; otherwise, it would only be used in one category.

Thirdly, since things that fall under one idea are also understood by one science, their theory would suggest there should be only one science that understands all goods together. But in reality, there are many sciences even for things in the same category. For example, when it comes to Opportunity or Seasonableness (which I mentioned before as being related to Time), the science is generalship in war, medical science in disease, and for the Mean (which I mentioned before as related to Quantity), it's medical science in food, and gymnastic science in exercise. One might also wonder what they mean by "very-this" or "very-that," since they would agree that the concept of humanity is the same in the "very-Man" and any individual man. As long as both the individual and the "very-Man" are human, they won't differ at all. If that's the case, then "very-good" and any particular good won't differ either, as long as both are good. It won't work to say that the eternity of the "very-good" makes it better, because something that has been white for a long time isn't any whiter than something that is white for just a day.

No. The Pythagoreans seem to provide a more believable explanation by including "one" in their list of both good and bad things. It appears that the philosopher Speusippus followed their approach.

But let's talk about these things another time. Right now, there's an obvious objection to what I've said. Some people might argue that the theory I've criticized doesn't apply to all good things. They say that only those things which are pursued and enjoyed for their own sake are considered to be under one idea of "good." On the other hand, things that help create or maintain these good things, or prevent their opposites, are called good because of their connection to these other goods, but in a different way. So, it's clear that "good" can mean two different things: one type is good for its own sake, and the other is good because of its relation to the first type.

Alright, let's separate the goods that are valuable on their own from those that are valuable because they lead to something else. We need to see if they all fit under one main idea. But the next question is, what kind of goods should we call independent? Are they the ones we pursue even when they're not connected to other goods, like being wise, seeing, and certain pleasures and honors? We do go after these for other reasons, but we'd still consider them independent goods. Or is it really the case that nothing can be called an independent good except the main idea itself, and without it, nothing else really counts?

If, on the other hand, these are separate goods, then we should expect that the explanation of their goodness would be the same for all, just like the explanation of whiteness is the same for snow and white lead. But what is the reality? The explanations for why honor, wisdom, and pleasure are good are different and unique. So, the highest good is not something common or based on one single idea.

But then, why do we use the same word "good" for different things? It doesn't seem like it's just a coincidence. Are things called good because they come from the same source, or because they all lead to the same goal, or maybe because they are similar in some way, like how the mind is to the soul as sight is to the body? However, we should probably leave these questions for now, because looking into them closely is really the job of a different area of philosophy. The same goes for the idea of a universal "good": even if there is one single "good" that applies to everything good, or if it exists separately on its own, it's clear that it can't be something humans can act on or achieve. But right now, we're looking for something that we can actually aim for.

It might seem obvious to anyone that it's better to learn about this with the goal of achieving real, practical benefits. By using this knowledge as a guide, we can better understand what is good for each of us personally. Once we know that, we can achieve those good things.

This argument might seem reasonable at first, but it doesn't match up with what we see in the arts and sciences. All these fields aim for some good and try to fix what's missing, yet they don't focus on knowing this ultimate good. It's unlikely that all craftsmen would ignore such a big help if it existed, and not even try to learn about it. It's also hard to see how a weaver or a carpenter would benefit in their work by knowing the ultimate good, or how a doctor or a military leader would be better at their job just by understanding this abstract idea. Clearly, doctors aren't concerned with health in a general, abstract way; they focus on the health of specific people, or even more specifically, this or that individual person. That's enough on these points.

If, on the other hand, these are independent goods, then we shall require that the account of the goodness be the same clearly in all, just as that of the whiteness is in snow and white lead. But how stands the fact? Why of honour and wisdom and pleasure the accounts are distinct and different in so far as they are good. The Chief Good then is not something common, and after one ἰδέα.

But then, how does the name come to be common (for it is not seemingly a case of fortuitous equivocation)? Are different individual things called good by virtue of being from one source, or all conducing to one end, or rather by way of analogy, for that intellect is to the soul as sight to the body, and so on? However, perhaps we ought to leave these questions now, for an accurate investigation of them is more properly the business of a different philosophy. And likewise respecting the ἰδέα: for even if there is some one good predicated in common of all things that are good, or separable and capable of existing independently, manifestly it cannot be the object of human action or attainable by Man; but we are in search now of something that is so.

It may readily occur to any one, that it would be better to attain a knowledge of it with a view to such concrete goods as are attainable and practical, because, with this as a kind of model in our hands, we shall the better know what things are good for us individually, and when we know them, we shall attain them.

Some plausibility, it is true, this argument possesses, but it is contradicted by the facts of the Arts and Sciences; for all these, though aiming at some good, and seeking that which is deficient, yet pretermit the knowledge of it: now it is not exactly probable that all artisans without exception should be ignorant of so great a help as this would be, and not even look after it; neither is it easy to see wherein a weaver or a carpenter will be profited in respect of his craft by knowing the very-good, or how a man will be the more apt to effect cures or to command an army for having seen the ἰδέα itself. For manifestly it is not health after this general and abstract fashion which is the subject of the physician’s investigation, but the health of Man, or rather perhaps of this or that man; for he has to heal individuals.—Thus much on these points.

Chapter 4

Let's go back to talking about the Good we are looking for: what could it be? Clearly, it is different for different actions and skills. For example, it's different in medicine and in the military, and it's the same for other areas too. So, what is the main Good in each one? Isn't it "the reason why we do other things?" In medicine, it's health; in the military, it's victory; in building a house, it's the house itself; and in any other activity, it's something else. In short, in every action and decision, it's the goal, because people do everything else to achieve this. So, if there is one ultimate goal for everything we do, this must be the Good we aim for, or if there are several, then these are the Goods.

So, after going back and forth in our discussion, we've ended up at the same point we reached earlier. We need to try to make this even clearer.

Now, since there are clearly many goals, and we choose some of them to achieve other things (like wealth, musical instruments, and generally all tools), it's clear that not all goals are final. The ultimate goal, or the Chief Good, is obviously something final. So, if there is only one final goal, that must be what we're looking for. But if there are several, then the most final one among them will be it.

We call something more final if it is pursued for its own sake rather than for something else. If something is never chosen for the sake of something else, it is more final than things chosen both for themselves and for something else. So, when we say "absolutely final," we mean something that is always chosen for its own sake and never for anything else.

Happiness is generally believed to be like this: we always choose it for its own sake and never for something else. On the other hand, we choose things like honor, pleasure, and intellect for their own sake too (because we would choose each of these even if nothing else came from them), but we also choose them because we think they will make us happy. However, no one chooses happiness to achieve these things or for any other reason.

The same conclusion comes from the idea of self-sufficiency, which is considered a quality of the ultimate good. By self-sufficient, we don't mean just for one person living alone, but also for their parents, children, spouse, and generally, friends and fellow citizens, because humans are naturally social beings. However, there must be some limit to this: if you include parents, descendants, and friends of friends, it could go on forever. We will leave this for further discussion later. For now, we define self-sufficient as "something that, by itself, makes life worth choosing and lacks nothing." We believe happiness is like this: it is the most desirable of all things and should not be compared with anything else. If it were compared, then adding even a small good to it would make it more desirable than before, because adding more good makes it even better, and among goods, the greater is always more desirable.

So, happiness is clearly something that is complete and enough by itself, as it is the ultimate goal of everything we do or can do.

Chapter 5

But maybe calling happiness the chief good is just stating the obvious, and what we really need is a clearer explanation of what it truly is. We can figure this out by discovering what the purpose of a person is. Just like with a flute-player, sculptor, or any kind of worker, their main goal and excellence are found in their work. It seems to be the same for people, if there is any specific purpose that belongs to them.

Should we think that while a carpenter and a cobbler have specific tasks and actions, a human being has none and is left by nature without any purpose? Or isn't it more reasonable to believe that just like the eye, hand, and foot, and generally each part of the body, clearly have specific functions, the whole person, separate from these parts, also has a unique purpose of their own?

So, what could this special thing be? It's not just being alive, because even plants share that with us, and we're looking for something unique to humans. We should set aside the basic life of just eating and growing. Next, there's the life of sensing things, but that's also common to animals like horses and cows. What's left is a kind of life that involves using our mind and reasoning. This rational life has two parts: one that follows reason and another that uses and applies it. Since this life can be understood in two ways, we should focus on the one that involves actively doing things, because that's what truly deserves the name. If the purpose of humans is to use their soul in line with reason, or at least not without it, and we say that the purpose of anything and the best version of that thing are the same (like a harp player and a good harp player, where the harp player's job is to play the harp and the good harp player's job is to play it well), then if we assume that the purpose of humans is a certain kind of life, which means using the soul and acting with reason, and for a good person to do these things well and nobly, and everything is best done with the excellence that suits it: if all this is true, then the Good of Man is "using the Soul in the way of Excellence," or if Excellence can vary, then in the way of the best and most perfect Excellence.

And we must add, "in a complete life"; because just like one swallow or one nice day doesn't make it spring, one day or a short time doesn't make a person truly blessed and happy.

Let's consider this a rough outline of the highest good. It's probably best to start with a basic outline and then add details later. It seems that anyone can enhance and connect the good parts of the outline, and time helps us discover and improve these things. This is how improvements in different skills and arts have happened, as anyone can add what is missing.

Remember what has already been mentioned: don't expect the same level of precision in every subject. Instead, aim for accuracy based on the topic and what is appropriate for the system. For example, a carpenter and a mathematician look at a straight line differently. The carpenter is interested in it for practical use in his work, while the mathematician studies its nature and properties because he is focused on understanding the truth.

In other situations, one should act in a way that the side issues don't become more important than the main ones.

Also, you shouldn't expect an explanation for everything in the same way. In some cases, it's enough to know that something has been clearly shown to be true, like with basic principles. The fact itself is the first step or starting point.

Some of these basic principles come from observing patterns, some from our senses, some from getting used to things, and others in different ways. We need to understand each one in its own way and make sure they are clearly defined, because they greatly affect everything that comes after. It's believed that the starting point or principle is more than half of the entire issue, and by understanding it, many other questions become clear at the same time.

Chapter 6

Now we need to look into what happiness is, not just based on our conclusions and the information we've used, but also from what people usually say about it. This is because everything that is true fits well together, but when something is false, the truth quickly shows it doesn't match.

There is a common way to divide good things into three categories: external goods, goods of the soul, and goods of the body. The goods of the soul are considered the most truly good. In our definition, we say that happiness comes from the actions and activities of the soul, which obviously belong to the soul. So, our explanation fits well with this old opinion, which is accepted by philosophers. It's also right to say that certain actions and activities are the ultimate goal because this makes them part of the soul's goods instead of external ones. This matches the common idea that a happy person lives well and does well, as we have described happiness as a kind of living well and doing well.

Moreover, the aspects needed for happiness are included in our explanation of it.

Some people believe happiness is virtue, others think it's practical wisdom, and some say it's a type of scientific philosophy. Others believe it's a mix of these things, or at least one of them, combined with pleasure, or at least not without it. There are also those who include external success as part of happiness.

Some of these opinions are based on what many people or ancient traditions say, while others come from a few well-known individuals. It's unlikely that either group is completely wrong about everything; they are probably right about at least some things, or even most things.

For those who say that happiness is virtue (excellence), or a type of virtue, our explanation matches: because acting in a way that shows excellence is definitely part of excellence.

There is an important difference between thinking of the highest good as something you have or something you use—in other words, as a state of being or as an action. A state or habit might exist in someone without doing any good, like when a person is asleep or not doing anything. But an action can't be like that because it must do something, and do it well. Just like in the Olympic games, it's not the strongest or best-looking people who win, but those who actually compete. In life, among those who are honorable and good, it's the ones who take action who truly earn the rewards.

Their life is naturally enjoyable because feeling pleasure is a mental experience. People find pleasure in things they love: like a horse is enjoyable to someone who loves horses, or a beautiful view to someone who loves sights. Similarly, just actions are enjoyable to someone who loves justice, and generally, virtuous actions are enjoyable to someone who loves virtue. For most people, what they find enjoyable often conflicts because these things aren't naturally enjoyable. However, for those who love nobility, the things that are naturally enjoyable are pleasant. Actions that align with virtue are like this, so they are enjoyable both to the person and in themselves.

So, their life doesn't need extra pleasure added on because it already includes pleasure. Besides, a person isn't really good if they don't enjoy doing noble things. Just like you wouldn't call someone just if they don't enjoy acting justly, or generous if they don't enjoy being generous. The same goes for other virtues. If this is true, then actions that follow virtue must be naturally enjoyable. Also, these actions are definitely good and noble, and they are the best of their kind. This is based on the judgment of a good person, as we've mentioned before.

So, happiness is the best, most honorable, and most enjoyable thing, and these qualities are not split up like in the famous Delian inscription:

"The most honorable thing is what is most fair, but the best thing is health; and the most enjoyable is getting what you want."

All these qualities are present in the best actions: and we say that happiness is made up of these qualities, or is the best one among them.

It's clear that external goods are needed for happiness, as we've mentioned before. Without certain resources, it's impossible, or at least very difficult, to do good deeds. Friends, money, and political influence are like tools that help us achieve many things. There are also some things, like good family background, having children, or even personal beauty, that are important for happiness. Someone who is very unattractive, poorly born, or lonely and without children might struggle to be happy. It's even harder if they have bad children or friends, or if they've lost good ones to death. As we've said, having these kinds of good things in life seems necessary to fully achieve happiness. That's why some people believe good luck and others believe virtue are essential for happiness.

Chapter 7

This raises a question: Can it be learned, or gained through practice or some other form of training? Or does it come from a divine gift, or even by chance?

If anything is a gift from the gods to humans, it's likely that happiness is one of those gifts, especially because it's the greatest of all human goods. However, this might be a topic for a different discussion than ours. It's clear that even if happiness doesn't come directly from the gods but instead comes from virtue, learning, or discipline, it is still one of the most divine things. This is because the reward and goal of virtue are clearly something excellent, even divine and blessed.

Based on this idea, it can be shared by many people because, through learning and effort, anyone who hasn't been hindered from being virtuous can have it.

And if it's better for us to be happy in this way rather than by chance, this itself is a reason to believe it's true. Things that happen naturally, or through skill, or any cause, especially the best cause, happen in the best way possible. Leaving the greatest and most noble things to chance would not fit well with these facts.

We can also answer this question by looking at how we define happiness. Happiness is an activity of the soul that involves a certain kind of excellence or virtue. Among other good things, some are necessary from the start, and others are helpful and useful, given to us by nature as tools.

These ideas also match what we said at the beginning: we assumed that the goal of politics is to be the most excellent. This means it focuses on shaping the members of the community to have a certain character; specifically, to be good and ready to do what is honorable.

We don't call an ox, a horse, or any other animal happy for a good reason: they can't engage in this kind of activity. Similarly, a child isn't considered happy either because they are too young to do these actions. If we do call a child happy, it's more like we're predicting they will be happy in the future.

To achieve happiness, there must be, as we've mentioned, full virtue and a complete life. This is because many changes and different events happen throughout life, and even the most successful person can face great misfortunes in their old age, like the story of Priam in the heroic poems. But if someone has gone through such bad luck and died in misery, no one would call them happy.

Chapter 8

Should we then say that no one is truly happy while they are alive, and, as Solon suggested, only consider them happy after their life is over? And if we take this view, does that mean a person is happy only when they are dead? Isn't this idea completely ridiculous, especially since we believe that happiness is about living and doing things in a certain way?

If, on the other hand, we don't say that a dead person is happy, and Solon doesn't mean this, but only suggests that we can safely call someone happy after they die because they are no longer affected by bad things and misfortunes, this idea can still be debated. People think that the dead can experience some good and bad things, just like someone alive but unaware of what's happening, such as honor and dishonor, and the good or bad fortune of their children and descendants in general.

This idea also has its problems: after a person has lived a happy life and passed away, many things can happen to their descendants. Some might do well and achieve success that matches their abilities, while others might not. It's clear that descendants can have all sorts of relationships with their ancestors at different times. It would be ridiculous to think that a dead person's happiness changes based on their descendants' lives. But it's also strange to think that what happens to the descendants doesn't affect the ancestors at all.

But we need to go back to the first point we talked about, because answering that will help us easily solve the current question.

If we are supposed to wait until the end of someone's life to say they were happy, instead of saying they are happy now, it seems strange. It's odd to not call someone happy while they are alive just because their life might change. We think of happiness as something stable and not easily changed, but good and bad luck often happen to the same people. It's clear that if we base happiness on someone's luck, we might call the same person happy one moment and miserable the next. This makes our idea of a happy person seem inconsistent.

"Like a chameleon, changing colors, and built on something rotten."

Isn't this the answer? It's not right to base our happiness on changes in fortune. Happiness and unhappiness don't depend on those things. While human life does need these external things to some extent (as we've already agreed), it's the actions guided by virtue that determine happiness, and the opposite actions lead to unhappiness.

By the way, the question we've been discussing supports our idea of happiness. Nothing in human life is as stable as actions done with virtue, which are considered even more lasting than knowledge. Among types of knowledge, the most valuable ones are the most enduring because happy people engage with them the most and most consistently, which is why they aren't forgotten. So, this stability we seek will be found in a happy person, and he will remain this way throughout his life. He will always, or mostly, be doing and thinking about virtuous things. He will handle life's ups and downs with great dignity and always in a balanced way because he is truly a good person, or as the saying goes, "a perfect cube."

There are many random events in life, and they can be big or small. The small bits of good or bad luck don't really change our overall happiness. But if big and many good things happen, they can make life happier because they add value and make our actions seem noble and excellent. On the other hand, if big and many bad things happen, they can hurt our happiness because they cause real pain and stop us from doing many things. However, even in tough times, a person's nobility can still show when they handle many big problems calmly, not because they don't feel pain, but because they are noble and strong-minded.

If, as we have said, the actions we take shape the kind of life we lead, then none of the truly happy people can ever become miserable, because they won't do things that are hateful or mean. A truly good and sensible person handles all situations well and always does the best they can given the circumstances. Just like a good general makes the most of the troops he has, or a good shoemaker makes the best shoe possible with the leather he has, all skilled workers do the same. If this is true, a happy person can never become miserable. However, I don't mean to say they will remain blessed if they face terrible misfortunes like those of Priam.

He is not easily swayed or changeable. His happiness won't be easily disturbed by everyday problems, but only by big and numerous troubles. Even then, he won't quickly regain his happiness; it will take a long and full period, during which he achieves great and noble things.

So, why shouldn't we call a person happy if they live according to perfect virtue and have enough external goods to play their role in the drama of life? And this should be not just for a short time, but for a complete life, as we have described it.

We should also say that not only should a person live well, but their death should match that good life. Since we can't see the future, and we believe that happiness is a complete and final goal, we will consider those who have and will have these qualities as blessed while they are alive, but blessed as humans.

On these points, let's say this much and leave it at that.