Eudaimonia (Greek:

'n ]),
sometimes anglicized as eudaemonia or eudemonia /j n /, is a Greek word commonly
translated as happiness or welfare; however, "human flourishing" has been proposed as a more
accurate translation.[1] Etymologically, it consists of the words "eu" ("good") and "daimn" ("spirit"). It
is a central concept in Aristotelian ethics and political philosophy, along with the terms " r t", most
often translated as "virtue" or "excellence", and "phronesis", often translated as "practical or ethical
wisdom".[2] In Aristotle's works, eudaimonia was (based on older Greek tradition) used as the term for
the highest human good, and so it is the aim of practical philosophy, including ethics and political
philosophy, to consider (and also experience) what it really is, and how it can be achieved.
Discussion of the links between virtue of character (ethik aret) and happiness (eudaimonia) is one
of the central concerns of ancient ethics, and a subject of much disagreement. As a result there are
many varieties of eudaimonism. Two of the most influential forms are those of Aristotle[3] and
the Stoics. Aristotle takes virtue and its exercise to be the most important constituent in eudaimonia
but acknowledges also the importance of external goods such as health, wealth, and beauty. By
contrast, the Stoics make virtue necessary and sufficient for eudaimonia and thus deny the necessity
of external goods.[4]
Contents
[hide]

1Definition
2M n v ws n
n
n ts r l t n t
o 2.1Socrates
o 2.2Plato
o 2.3Aristotle
o 2.4Epicurus
o 2.5The Stoics
3Eudaimonia and modern moral philosophy
4Eudaimonia and modern psychology
o 4.1Parenting and eudaimonia
o 4.2Self-acceptance
o 4.3Purpose in life
o 4.4Eudaimonia in adolescence
o 4.5Genetics
5Etymology and translation
6See also
7References
8Further reading
9External links

r t

Definition[edit]
The Definitions, a dictionary of Greek philosophical terms attributed to Plato himself but believed by
modern scholars to have been written by his immediate followers in the Academy, provides the
following definition of the word eudaimonia: "The good composed of all goods; an ability which
suffices for living well; perfection in respect of virtue; resources sufficient for a living creature."
In his Nicomachean Ethics, (21; 1095a1522) Aristotle says that everyone agrees that eudaimonia
is the highest good for human beings, but that there is substantial disagreement on what sort of life
counts as doing and living well; i.e. eudaimon:

Verbally there is a very general agreement; for both the general run of men and people of superior
refinement say that it is [eudaimonia], and identify living well and faring well with being happy; but
with regard to what [eudaimonia] is they differ, and the many do not give the same account as the
wise. For the former think it is some plain and obvious thing like pleas r , w lth r h n r
[1095a17][5]
So, as Aristotle points out, saying that eudaimon life is a life which is objectively desirable, and
means living well, is not saying very much. Everyone wants to be eudaimon; and everyone agrees
th t b ng
n s r l t t f r ng w ll n t n n v
ls w ll b ng. Th r lly ff c lt
question is to specify just what sort of activities enable one to live well. Aristotle presents various
popular conceptions of the best life for human beings. The candidates that he mentions are a (1) life
of pleasure, (2) a life of political activity and (3) a philosophical life.
One important move in Greek philosophy to answer the question of how to achieve eudaimonia is to
bring in another important concept in ancient philosophy, "arete" ("virtue"). Aristotle says that the
n l f s n f v rt
s ct v ty n cc r nc w th r s n 1097b221098a20]. And
even Epicurus who argues that the eudaimon life is the life of pleasure maintains that the life of
pleasure coincides with the life of virtue. So the ancient ethical theorists tend to agree that virtue is
closely bound up with happiness (aret is bound up with eudaimonia). However, they disagree on
the way in which this is so. We shall consider the main theories in a moment, but first a warning
about the proper translation of aret.
As already noted, the Greek word aret is usually translated into English as "virtue". One problem
with this is that we are inclined to understand virtue in a moral sense, which is not always what the
ancients had in mind. For a Greek, aret pertains to all sorts of qualities we would not regard as
relevant to ethics, for example, physical beauty. So it is important to bear in mind that the sense of
v rt p r t v n nc nt th cs s n t xcl s v ly
r l n ncl
s
r th n st t s s ch s
wisdom, courage and compassion. The sense of virtue which aret connotes would include saying
something like "speed is a virtue in a horse", or "height is a virtue in a basketball player". Doing
anything well requires virtue, and each characteristic activity (such as carpentry, flute playing, etc.)
has its own set of virtues. The alternative translation "excellence" (or "a desirable quality") might be
helpful in conveying this general meaning of the term. The moral virtues are simply a subset of the
general sense in which a human being is capable of functioning well or excellently.

Main views on eudaimonia and its relation to aret[edit]

Socrates[edit]

French painter David portrayed the philosopher in The Death of Socrates (1787).

What we know of Socrates' philosophy is almost entirely derived from Plato's writings. Scholars
typically divide Plato's works into three periods: the early, middle, and late periods. They tend to
agree also that Plato's earliest works quite faithfully represent the teachings of Socrates and that
Plato's own views, which go beyond those of Socrates, appear for the first time in the middle works
such as the Phaedo and the Republic. This division will be employed here in dividing up the
positions of Socrates and Plato on eudaimonia.
As with all other ancient ethical thinkers Socrates thought that all human beings wanted eudaimonia
more than anything else. (see Plato, Apology 30b, Euthydemus 280d282d, Meno 87d89a).
However, Socrates adopted a quite radical form of eudaimonism (see above): he seems to have
thought that virtue is both necessary and sufficient for eudaimonia. Socrates is convinced that
virtues such as self-control, courage, justice, piety, wisdom and related qualities of mind and soul
are absolutely crucial if a person is to lead a good and happy (eudaimon) life. Virtues guarantee a
happy life eudaimonia. For example, in the Meno, with respect to wisdom, he says: "everything the
soul endeavours or endures under the guidance of wisdom ends in happiness" [Meno 88c].
In the Apology, Socrates clearly presents his disagreement with those who think that the eudaimon
life is the life of honour or pleasure, when he chastises the Athenians for caring more for riches and
honour than the state of their souls.
Good Sir, you are an Athenian, a citizen of the greatest city with the greatest reputation for both
wisdom and power; are you not ashamed of your eagerness to possess as much wealth, reputation,
and honors as possible, while you do not care for nor give thought to wisdom or truth or the best
possible state of your soul [29e].[6]
t
sn ts
lk h
nn t r f r
t h v n glected all my own affairs and to have
tolerated this neglect for so many years while I was always concerned with you, approaching each
one of you like a father or an elder brother to persuade you to care for virtue. [31ab; italics added]
It emerges a bit f rth r n th t th s c nc rn f r n s s l, th t n s s l ght b n th b st
p ss bl st t ,
nts t cq r ng
r l v rt . S S cr t s p nt th t th Ath n ns sh l c r
for their souls means that they should care for their virtue, rather than pursuing honour or riches.
Virtues are states of the soul. When a soul has been properly cared for and perfected it possesses
the virtues. Moreover, according to Socrates, this state of the soul, moral virtue, is the most
important good. The health of the soul is incomparably more important for eudaimonia than (e.g.)
wealth and political power. Someone with a virtuous soul is better off than someone who is wealthy
and honoured but whose soul is corrupted by unjust actions. This view is confirmed in the Crito,
where Socrates gets Crito to agree that the perfection of the soul, virtue, is the most important good:
And is life worth living for us with that part of us corrupted that unjust action harms and just action
benefits? Or do we think that part of us, whatever it is, that is concerned with justice and injustice, is
nf r r t th b y? N t t ll. It s
ch
r v l bl ? M ch
r (47 48a)
Here Socrates argues that life is not worth living if the soul is ruined by wrongdoing.[7] In summary,
Socrates seems to think that virtue is both necessary and sufficient for eudaimonia. A person who is
not virtuous cannot be happy, and a person with virtue cannot fail to be happy. We shall see later on
that Stoic ethics takes its cue from this Socratic insight.

Plato[edit]
Pl t s gr t w rk f th
l p r , th Republic, is devoted to answering a challenge made by
the sophist Thrasymachus, that conventional morality, part c l rly th v rt f j st c , ct lly
pr v nts th str ng
n fr
ch v ng
n . Thr sy ch ss v ws r r st t
nts f
position which Plato discusses earlier on in his writings, in the Gorgias, through the mouthpiece of
Callicles. The basic argument presented by Thrasymachus and Callicles is that justice (being just)
hinders or prevents the achievement of eudaimonia because conventional morality requires that we

control ourselves and hence live with un-satiated desires. This idea is vividly illustrated in book 2 of
the Republic wh n Gl c n, t k ng p Thr sy ch s ch ll ng , r c nts
yth f th
gc l
ring of Gyges. According to the myth, Gyges becomes king of Lydia when he stumbles upon a
magical ring, which, when he turns it a particular way, makes him invisible, so that he can satisfy any
desire he wishes without fear of punishment. When he discovers the power of the ring he kills the
king, marries his wife and takes over the throne. The thr st f Gl c ns ch ll ng s th t n n
would be just if he could escape the retribution he would normally encounter for fulfilling his desires
at whim. But if eudaimonia is to be achieved through the satisfaction of desire, whereas being just or
acting justly requires suppression of desire, then it is not in the interests of the strong man to act
according to the dictates of conventional morality. (This general line of argument reoccurs much later
in the philosophy of Nietzsche.) Throughout the rest of the Republic, Plato aims to refute this claim
by showing that the virtue of justice is necessary for eudaimonia.

The School of Athens by Raffaello Sanzio, 1509, showing Plato (left) and Aristotle (right)

The argument of the Republic is lengthy and complex. In brief, Plato argues that virtues are states of
the soul, and that the just person is someone whose soul is ordered and harmonious, with all its
p rts f nct n ng pr p rly t th p rs ns b n f t. In c ntr st, Pl t rg s th t th nj st
ns
soul, without the virtues, is chaotic and at war with itself, so that even if he were able to satisfy most
of his desires, his lack of inner harmony and unity thwart any chance he has of achieving
n . Pl t s th c l th ry s
onistic because it maintains that eudaimonia depends
n v rt . On Pl t s v rs n f th r l t nsh p, v rt
s p ct
s th
st cr c l n th
dominant constituent of eudaimonia.

Aristotle[edit]
Aristotle's account is articulated in the Nicomachean Ethics and the Eudemian Ethics. In outline, for
Aristotle, eudaimonia involves activity, exhibiting virtue (aret sometimes translated as excellence) in
accordance with reason. This conception of eudaimonia derives from
Ar st tl s essentialist understanding of human nature, the view that reason (logos sometimes
translated as rationality) is unique to human beings and that the ideal function or work (ergon) of a
human being is the fullest or most perfect exercise of reason. Basically, well being (eudaimonia) is
gained by proper development of one's highest and most human capabilities and human beings are
"the rational animal". It follows that eudaimonia for a human being is the attainment of excellence
(aret) in reason.

According to Aristotle, eudaimonia actually requires activity, action, so that it is not sufficient for a
person to possess a squandered ability or disposition. Eudaimonia requires not only good character
but rational activity. Aristotle clearly maintains that to live in accordance with reason means
achieving excellence thereby. Moreover, he claims this excellence cannot be isolated and so
competencies are also required appropriate to related functions. For example, if being a truly
outstanding scientist requires impressive math skills, one might say "doing mathematics well is
necessary to be a first rate scientist". From this it follows that eudaimonia, living well, consists in
activities exercising the rational part of the psyche in accordance with the virtues or excellency of
reason [1097b221098a20]. Which is to say, to be fully engaged in the intellectually stimulating and
fulfilling work at which one achieves well-earned success. The rest of the Nicomachean Ethics is
devoted to filling out the claim that the best life for a human being is the life of excellence in
accordance with reason. Since reason for Aristotle is not only theoretical but practical as well, he
spends quite a bit of time discussing excellence of character, which enables a person to exercise his
practical reason (i.e., reason relating to action) successfully.
Ar st tl s th c l th ry s
n st b c s t
nt ns th t
n
p n s n v rt .
However, it is Aristotles xpl c t v w th t v rt
s n c ss ry b t n t s ff c nt f r
n . Wh l
emphasizing the importance of the rational aspect of the psyche, he does not ignore the importance
f th r g
s s ch s fr n s, w lth, n p w r n l f th t s
imonic. He doubts the
lk lh
f b ng
n c f n l cks c rt n xt rn l g
s s ch s g
b rth, g
ch l r n,
n b
ty. S , p rs n wh s h
sly gly r h s l st ch l r n r g
fr n s thr gh
th
(1099b56), or who is isolated, is unlikely to be eudaimon. In this way, "dumb luck" (chance) can
preempt one's attainment of eudaimonia.

Epicurus[edit]

Epicurus identified eudaimonia with the life of pleasure.

Epicurus' ethical theory is hedonistic. (His view proved very influential on the founders and best
proponents of utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.) Hedonism is the view that
pleasure is the only intrinsic good and that pain is the only intrinsic bad. An object, experience or

state of affairs is intrinsically valuable if it is good simply because of what it is. Intrinsic value is to be
contrasted with instrumental value. An object, experience or state of affairs is instrumentally valuable
if it serves as a means to what is intrinsically valuable. To see this, consider the following example.
Suppose a person spends their days and nights in an office, working at not entirely pleasant
activities, such as entering data into a computer, for the purpose of receiving money. Someone asks
them "why do you want the money?", and they answer: "So, I can buy an apartment overlooking the
Mediterranean, and a red Ferrari." This answer expresses the point that money is instrumentally
valuable because it is a means to getting an apartment and a red Ferrari. The value of making
money is dependent on the price of commodities. It is instrumentally valuable: valuable only because
of what one obtains by means of it.
Epicurus identifies the eudaimon life with the life of pleasure. He understands eudaimonia as a more
or less continuous experience of pleasure, and also, freedom from pain and distress. But it is
important to notice that Epicurus does not advocate that one pursue any and every pleasure. Rather,
he recommends a policy whereby pleasures are maximized "in the long run". In other words,
Epicurus claims that some pleasures are not worth having because they lead to greater pains, and
some pains are worthwhile when they lead to greater pleasures. The best strategy for attaining a
maximal amount of pleasure overall is not to seek instant gratification but to work out a sensible long
term policy.
Ancient Greek ethics is eudaimonist because it links virtue and eudaimonia, where eudaimonia
r f rs t n n v
ls w ll b ng. Ep c r s' ctr n c n b c ns r
n st s nc Ep c r s
argues that a life of pleasure will coincide with a life of virtue. He believes that we do and ought to
seek virtue because virtue brings pleasure. Epicurus' basic doctrine is that a life of virtue is the life
which generates the most amount of pleasure, and it is for this reason that we ought to be virtuous.
This thesisthe eudaimon life is the pleasurable lifeis not a tautology as "eudaimonia is the good
life" would be: rather, it is the substantive and controversial claim that a life of pleasure and absence
of pain is what eudaimonia consists in.
One important difference between Epicurus' eudaimonism and that of Plato and Aristotle is that for
the latter virtue is a constituent of eudaimonia, whereas Epicurus makes virtue a means to
h pp n ss. T th s ff r nc , c ns r Ar st tl s th ry. Ar st tle maintains that eudaimonia is what
everyone wants (and Epicurus would agree). He also thinks that eudaimonia is best achieved by a
life of virtuous activity in accordance with reason. The virtuous person takes pleasure in doing the
right thing as a result of a proper training of moral and intellectual character (See e.g., Nicomachean
Ethics 1099a5). However, Aristotle does not think that virtuous activity is pursued for the sake of
pleasure. Pleasure is a byproduct of virtuous action: it does not enter at all into the reasons why
virtuous action is virtuous. Aristotle does not think that we literally aim for eudaimonia. Rather,
eudaimonia is what we achieve (assuming that we aren't particularly unfortunate in the possession of
external goods) when we live according to the requirements of reason. Virtue is the largest
constituent in a eudaimon life. By contrast, Epicurus holds that virtue is the means to achieve
happiness. His theory is eudaimonist in that he holds that virtue is indispensable to happiness; but
virtue is not a constituent of a eudaimon life, and being virtuous is not (external goods aside)
identical with being eudaimon. Rather, according to Epicurus, virtue is only instrumentally related to
happiness. So whereas Aristotle would not say that one ought to aim for virtue in order to attain
pleasure, Epicurus would endorse this claim.

The Stoics[edit]

Zeno, thought happiness was a "good flow of life."

Stoic philosophy begins with Zeno of Citium c.300 BC, and was developed by Cleanthes (331232
BC) and Chrysippus (c.280c.206 BC) into a formidable systematic unity.[8] Zeno believed happiness
was a "good flow of life"; Cleanthes suggested it was "living in agreement with nature", and
Chrysippus believed it was "living in accordance with experience of what happens by nature."[8] Stoic
ethics is a particularly strong version of eudaimonism. According to the Stoics, virtue is necessary
and sufficient for eudaimonia. (This thesis is generally regarded as stemming from the Socrates of
Pl t s rl r
l g s.) W s w rl r th t th c nv nt n l Gr k c nc pt f r t s n t q t
the same as that denoted by virtue, which has Christian connotations of charity, patience, and
uprightness, since arete includes many non-moral virtues such as physical strength and beauty.
However, the Stoic concept of arete is much nearer to the Christian conception of virtue, which
refers to the moral virtues. However, unlike Christian understandings of virtue, righteousness or
piety, the Stoic conception does not place as great an emphasis on mercy, forgiveness, selfabasement (i.e. the ritual process of declaring complete powerlessness and humility before God),
charity and self-sacrificial love, though these behaviors/mentalities are not necessarily spurned by
the Stoics (they are spurned by some other philosophers of Antiquity). Rather Stoicism emphasizes
states such as justice, honesty, moderation, simplicity, self-discipline, resolve, fortitude, and courage
(states which Christianity also encourages).
The Stoics make a radical claim that the eudaimon life is the morally virtuous life. Moral virtue is
good, and moral vice is bad, and everything else, such as health, honour and riches, are merely
n tr l.[8] The Stoics therefore are committed to saying that external goods such as wealth and
physical beauty are not really good at all. Moral virtue is both necessary and sufficient for
eudaimonia. In this, they are akin to Cynic philosophers such as Antisthenes and Diogenes in
denying the importance to eudaimonia of external goods and circumstances, such as were
r c gn z by Ar st tl , wh th ght th t s v r
sf rt n (s ch s th
th f n s f
ly n
friends) could rob even the most virtuous person of eudaimonia. This Stoic doctrine re-emerges later
in the history of ethical philosophy in the writings of Immanuel Kant, who argues that the possession
of a "good will" is the only unconditional good. One difference is that whereas the Stoics regard
xt rn l g
s s n tr l, s n th r g
n r b , K nts p s t n s
s t b th t xt rn l g
s
are good, but only so far as they are a condition to achieving happiness.

Eudaimonia and modern moral philosophy[edit]

Interest in the concept of eudaimonia and ancient ethical theory more generally enjoyed a revival in
the twentieth century. G. E. M. Anscombe in her article "Modern Moral Philosophy" (1958) argued

that duty-based conceptions of morality are conceptually incoherent for they are based on the idea
of a "law without a lawgiver".[9] She claims a system of morality conceived along the lines of the Ten
Commandments depends on someone having made these rules.[10] Anscombe recommends a return
to the eudaimonistic ethical theories of the ancients, particularly Aristotle, which ground morality in
the interests and well being of human moral agents, and can do so without appealing to any such
lawgiver.
Julia Driver in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains:
Anscombe's article Modern Moral Philosophy stimulated the development of virtue ethics as an
alternative to Utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics, and Social Contract theories. Her primary charge in the
article is that, as secular approaches to moral theory, they are without foundation. They use
concepts such as "morally ought", "morally obligated", "morally right", and so forth that are legalistic
and require a legislator as the source of moral authority. In the past God occupied that role, but
systems that dispense with God as part of the theory are lacking the proper foundation for
meaningful employment of those concepts.[11]

Eudaimonia and modern psychology[edit]

Further information: Psychological well-being and Meaningful life
Models of eudaimonia in psychology emerged from early work on self-actualization and the means
of its accomplishment by researchers such as Erik Erikson, Gordon Allport, and Abraham
Maslow.[12] The psychologist C. D. Ryff highlighted the distinction between eudaimonia wellbeing,
which she identified as psychological well-being, and hedonic wellbeing or pleasure. Building on
Aristotelian ideals of belonging and benefiting others, flourishing, thriving and exercising excellence,
she conceptualised eudaimonia as a six-factor structure:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Autonomy
Personal growth
Self-acceptance
Purpose in life
Environmental mastery
Positive relations with others.

Ryff's six-factor model of eudaimonic well-being describes the six aspects of positive functioning that
an individual who strives to lead a fulfilled life must endorse.[13] She states that the pursuit and
acquisition of positive relationships is an intrinsically motivated desire that is endorsed crossculturally as a route to being void of ill-being as well as leading a meaningful life.
A study conducted in the early 1990s exploring the relationship between well-being and those
aspects of positive functioning that were put forth in Ryff's model indicates that persons who aspired
more for financial success relative to affiliation with others or their community scored lower on
various measures of well-being.[14]
Individuals that strive for a life defined by affiliation, intimacy, and contributing to one's community
can be described as aspiring to fulfil their intrinsic psychological needs. In contrast, those individuals
who aspire for wealth and material, social recognition, fame, image, or attractiveness can be
described as aiming to fulfil their extrinsic psychological needs. The strength of an individual's
intrinsic (relative to extrinsic) aspirations as indicated by rankings of importance correlates with an
array of psychological outcomes. Positive correlations have been found with indications of
psychological well-being: positive affect, vitality, and self-actualization. Negative correlations have
been found with indicators of psychological ill-being: negative affect, depression, and anxiety.[15]
A more recent study confirming Ryff's notion of maintaining positive relations with others as a way of
leading a meaningful life involved comparing levels of self-reported life satisfaction and subjective

well-being (positive/negative affect). Results suggested that individuals whose actions had
underlying eudaimonic tendencies as indicated by their self-reports (e.g., "I seek out situations that
challenge my skills and abilities") were found to possess higher subjective well-being and life
satisfaction scores compared to participants who did not.[16] Individuals were grouped according to
their chosen paths/strategies to happiness as identified by their answers on an Orientation to
Happiness Questionnaire.[17]The questionnaire describes and differentiates individuals on the basis
of three orientations to happiness which can be pursued, though some individuals do not pursue
any. The "pleasure" orientation describes a path to happiness that is associated with adopting
hedonistic lif g ls t s t sfy nly n s xtr ns c n
s. Eng g
nt n
n ng r nt t ns
describe a pursuit of happiness that integrates two positive psychology constructs
"flow/engagement" and "eudaimonia/meaning". Both of the latter orientations are also associated
w th sp r ng t
t ntr ns c n
s f r ff l t n n c
n ty n w r
lg
t by An
n T n nt
s ngl "
n c" p th t h pp n ss th t l c t h gh sc r s n ll
s r s f
well-being and life satisfaction. Importantly, she also produced scales for assessing mental
health.[12] This factor structure has been debated,[18][19] but has generated much research in wellbeing,
health, and successful aging.
Eudaimonic well-being has been found to be empirically distinguishable from hedonic well-being.[20][21]