Justina's Writing Corner

In Book 2 and 3 of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle addresses happiness as the ultimate goal of human life, defining it as the “final good”—the end pursued for its own sake, rather than as a means to achieve something else. Happiness must meet two criteria: finality (must be the ultimate goal, leaving nothing further to be desired) and self-sufficiency (must provide complete fulfillment without reliance on external conditions). Happiness is an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue, and it must be attainable through human effort. Unlike Plato’s abstract “Form of the Good,” Aristotle grounds his concept of happiness in what is practical and accessible to human beings.

Aristotle further examines the three prominent conceptions of happiness: pleasure, honor, and contemplation. Pleasure is which a life focused on physical gratification is base and more appropriate to animals than humans. Honor is for people pursuing honor that reflects a higher good but is ultimately dependent on external validation and the opinions of others, making it unstable. And contemplation is the highest form of happiness rooted in intellectual activity and contemplation, as it engages the rational part of the soul. Contemplation represents the “final good” and aligns with the divine or transcendent aspect of human nature. Aristotle acknowledges that this ideal is often beyond the practical reach of most people which leads to ambiguity.

In Book 2, happiness is framed as achievable through moral virtue, which requires practical actions such as courage and temperance. This aligns with the idea of living virtuously within human limitations. In Book 3, he introduces intellectual virtue as the highest form of human activity, suggesting that true happiness lies in contemplation: transcends practical concerns. This creates ambiguity because intellectual virtue may not be fully attainable for all individuals.

Aristotle argues that everything has a specific function, and the “good” of something lies in performing its function well. This principle extends to human beings. He believes that humans also have a function and the specific function of humans is reason, distinguishing them from other animals. The good for humans is an activity of the soul in accordance with reason, performed well. This is divided further into two aspects: moral and intellectual. Moral Virtue is achieved through the obedience of passions to reason, involving actions such as courage and temperance. Intellectual Virtue is the activity of reason itself, involving wisdom and contemplation. Happiness, therefore, is found in living rationally, either through moral virtue (practical action) or intellectual virtue (contemplation).

I would argue that both parts of Aristotle’s function argument are flawed. First, for something to have a function, that function must be unique to it. Reason, however, is not exclusive to humans. All living beings possess some capacity for reasoning—it is simply a matter of degree. For instance, dogs can reason when deciding to protect their owners or choose food they like. While dogs may not have the ability to build phones, it does not mean they are incapable of reasoning. Therefore, if reasoning exists in other animals, it cannot be considered a function unique to humans. I believe that the function of humans is not reason but something else entirely.

Furthermore, reason does not always lead to happiness. For example, imagine going out with friends on a cold winter night and encountering a frozen pond. Reason would tell you to avoid jumping into the pond because it is cold and potentially dangerous. However, caught up in the joy and excitement of the moment, you decide to jump in anyway and have a great time. This example shows that happiness and fun can sometimes be achieved without relying on reason.