A critique of Aristotle's conception of Eudemonia in the Nicomachean ethics.

Abstract

This thesis attempts to describe the best life that everyone should lead. It undertakes a case - study of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. The problem involves the description of the best life and Aristotle's conception of it. For Aristotle, the best life is a happy life (eudaimon life), while the best good is happiness (eudaimonia). Eudaimonia consists in contemplation and an eudaimon life is a contemplative life. But Aristotle is not quite clear on the relationship between eudaimonia and an eudaimon life. It is not clear whether these are different or the same. Yet his eudairnonia does not seem to be what everyone wants. For Aristotle contemplation is the sole preoccupation of 'the gods'; only a philosopher can lead this 'divine' life in exercising the 'divine faculty' of reasoning. But it is impossible to prove that the so-called gods exist and that they contemplate. As Dr. Solomon Monyenye has observed, there are different conceptions of happiness: "The term happiness has a wide range of application and diverse modes of life may each be conceived of as generating happiness to the people concerned." 1 It is ',..

a question of relativism.

However, contemporary Aristotelians seem to disagree about Aristotle's conception of eudaimonia. Some scholars argue that eudaimonia is a composite end which includes many desirable goods besides contemplation, but other scholars maintain that eudaimonia consists in a single monolithic good, namely contemplation. These views have been called the 'inclusive' and the 'dominant' views, respectively (thanks to F. W. R. Hardie) though they are-not necessarily mutually exclusive. But there are other scholars like EI~lie OksenberiR'Ofty WRO insist that Aristotle was

simply undecided whether to advocate the inclusive or the dominant view of eudaimonia. Ackril1, Cooper and White present the inclusive view whereas Hardie, Kenny, and Kraut present the dominant view. It is difficult to tell which one of these schools of thought is a true representation of Aristotle's view of eudaimonia, without reading Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. After reading the text, I discovered that the 'inclusivists' and the 'exclusivists' argue at cross-purposes. For the latter think that eudaimonia is the best human good while the former think that it is the best human life since Aristotle's view of eudaimonia is ambiguously unclear. All in all, I found that Aristotle leans towards the dominant view of eudaimonia. According to my own interpretation of Aristotle's view of eudaimonia, the two are different. But for me, eudaimonia(happiness) and an eudaimon life(happy life) are synonymous terms. They mean the same thing conceptual1y and practical1y, in abstraction as well as in concrete reality. But for Aristotle these are two different things. At first I thought like Aristotl-e.. that there was one kind of human life that is

the best of all other kinds of life. But later I realised that different people have different opinions about the best life and that the question 'what is the best life?' cannot be answered conclusively.. There is no consensus on this matter. It is a matter of relativism. But the fact that there is no possibility of a universal agreement on what is the best life for all human beings does not prevent anyone from expressing one's view as • what it might be! The best that one can do is to state one's opinion about the best life. I have reiterated the view that the best rfe is not, as Aristotle thought, an exclusive life of sheer contemplation. I have argued that the best life for

in which all that one needs is available. But such a life is unrealizable. It is unattainable and untenable in practice. It is only possible in theory.