Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics: The Virtue Of True Happiness

In book one of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle establishes his belief that in order for humans beings to achieve true happiness, they should try to find balance in certain aspects of their life called virtues. To define true happiness, Aristotle formulates that whatever happiness is, it must be the highest good (49). In other words, Aristotle is indicating that whatever we do in life, we do for the sake of happiness. Furthermore, true happiness is the apogee of our intentions. Once we achieve true happiness, no further measures can be taken to move past it (51). After it has been established that happiness is to be considered the highest good, the philosopher correlates good to funtion. In order for something to be good, it must be well-aligned
Consequently, if we can address the function of humanity, we can distinguish what its highest good is, which will reveal the key to happiness. Quickly dismissing that humans are “good-for-nothing,” Aristotle works out that the function of humans is conformity between the soul and what is called rational principle (52). The rational principle refers to what Aristotle later outlines as the virtues which are a mean or middle ground for characteristics of a soul. Moreover, happiness can be achieved through the continuous conformation to said qualities. One of the spheres or spectra that Aristotle goes on to write about is that of confidence and fear. This can be applied to the the commander in chief of the armed forces. The president needs to find the mean of this spectrum in courage. An overly-confident president will live a rash lifestyle leading to the regret of decisions he or she made without consultation. Yet, a cowardice president will also be full of regret due to the decisions he has failed to make. Thus, if he wants to be complacent in his choices he needs to live a life in the
In contrast to Aristotle’s main premise that the highest good is achieved through maximization of something’s function, things designed for evil do not seem to follow this pattern. Bringing back the example of a bomb’s function, we see that the bomb does no good. Bombs kill human beings, which is often seen as the epitope of evil. The more devastation a bomb can cause, the more effective the bomb is at fulfilling its purpose. Following Aristotle’s ideology would lead one to believe that the most destructive bomb -- a “good” bomb -- would be achieving the highest good. Some might say that the function of a bomb is actually to end wars, save lives, or using it for a greater good; however, this is not something we would hear Aristotle agree to. He would believe that killing shows lack of virtue, thus not a part of a positive life. We find the issue to be that something good at it’s job is not necessarily good in general. The premise for a highest good of humanity does not take into account that some things are purposefully evil. If the purpose of humankind is something that leads to the destruction of all other forms of life, then can realizing this purpose actually be a good? Therefore, Aristotle’s premise that the highest good is the complete realization of purpose is faulty because something that is good at what it does is not