Module 6

The Good Life

This module introduces concepts from Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics and examines issues in

contemporary science and technology using the same philosophical lens. It tackles the

important Aristotelian concepts of eudaimonia and arête, and how these can be used to

assess one’s relationship and dealings with science and technology.

In this module, you will learn:

a. To define the idea of the good life.

b. To discuss Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonia and arête.

c. To examine contemporary issues and come up with innovative and creative solutions to

contemporary issues guided by ethical standards leading to a good life.

“Are we living the good life?”

Are we living the good life? This question is inarguably universal human concern. Everyone

aims to lead a good life what constitutes a happy and contented life varies from to person.

Unique backgrounds, experiences, social contexts, and e preferences make it difficult to

subscribe to a unified standard of which to tease out the meaning of ‘the good life.' Thus, the

prospect of a standard of the good life – one that resonates across unique human

experiences – is inviting.

A. Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics and the Good Life

To answer the question, "Are we living the good life?,” necessary reflection must be made

on two things: first, what standard could be used to define the good life?' Second, how

can the standard serve as a guide toward living the good life in the midst of scientific

progress and technological advancement?

 In the documentary film, The Magician's Twin: C. S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism,

C. S. Lewis posited that "science must be guided by some ethical basis that is not dictated

by science itself.” One such ethical basis is Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics.

Aristotle, who lived from 384 to 322 BC, is probably the most important ancient Greek

philosopher and scientist. He was a student of Plato, who was then a student of Socrates.

Together, they were considered the 'Big Three of Greek Philosopher.

Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, the fundamental basis of Aristotelian ethics, consists of

ten books. Originally, they were lecture notes written on scrolls when he taught at the

Lyceum. It is widely believed that the lecture notes were compiled by or were dictated to

one of Aristotle’s sons, Nichomacus. Alternatively, it is believed that the work was dictated

to Aristotle’s father who was of the same name.

The Nichomachean Ethics, is a treatise on the nature of moral life and human happiness

based on the unique essesnce of human nature. The NE is particularly useful in defining

what the good life is.

Everyone has a definition of what good is. However, although everyone aims to achieve

that which is good, Aristotle posited two types of good. In NE Book 2 Chapter 2, (NE 2:2),

Aristotle explained that every actions aim at some good. However, some actions aims at

an instrumental good while aim at an intrinsic good. He made it clear that the ultimate

good is better than the instrumental good for the latter is good as a mean to achieving

something else or some other end while the former is good in itself.

B. Eudaimonia: The Ultimate Good

What then is the ultimate good? Based on the contrast between e types of good, one

could reflect on some potential candidates for the ultimate good.

One might think that pleasure is the ultimate good. One aims for pleasure in the food they

eat or in the experiences they immerse themselves into. Yet, while pleasure is an important

human need, it cannot be the ultimate good. First, it is transitory-it passes. One may have

been pleased with the food they had for lunch, but he or she will be hungry again or will

want something else after a while. Second, pleasure does not encompass all aspects of
life. One may be pleased with an opportunity to travel but that may not make him or her

feel good about leaving, say, his or her studies or the relationship he or she has been

struggling with.

Others might think that wealth is a potential candidate for the ultimate good, but a

critique of wealth would prove otherwise. Indeed, many, if not most, aim to be financially

stable, to be rich, or to be able to afford a luxurious life. However, it is very common to

hear people say that they aim to be wealthy insofar as it would help them achieve some

other goals. Elsewhere, it is also common to hear stories about people who have become

very wealthy but remain, by and large, unhappy with the lives they lead. In this sense,

wealth is just an intermediate good—that is, only instrumental. It is not the uk good

because it is not self-sufficient and does not stop one from ain for some other greater'

good.

Another candidate for the ultimate good is fame and honor. Many to be people today

seem to be motivated by a desire to be known famous. Others strive for honor and

recognition. This is reflected by those people who use social media to acquire large virtual

following on the internet and wish to gain a foothold on the benefits that fame brings.

Many people act according to how they think they will be admired and appreciated by

other people. However, these cannot constitute the ultimate good, simply because they

are based on the perception of others. Fame and honor can never be good in

themselves. If one's definition of the good life is being popular or respected, then the good

life becomes elusive since it is based on the subjective views of others.

Unlike pleasure, wealth, fame, and honor, happiness is the ultimate good. In the

Aristotelian sense, happiness is “living well and doing well” (NE 1:4). Among the Greeks, this

is known as eudaimonia, from the root words eu, meaning good, and daimon, meaning

spirit. Combining the root words, eudaimonia means happiness or welfare. More

accurately, others translate it as human flourishing or prosperity. Aristotle proposed two

hallmarks of eudaimonia, namely virtue and excellence (NE 1:7). Thus, happiness in the

sense of eudaimonia has to be distinguished from merely living good. Eudaimonia

transcends all aspects of life for it is about living well and doing well in whatever one does.
C. Eudaimonia: Uniquely Human?

Eudaimonia or happiness is unique to humans for it is a uniquely human function. It is

achieved only through a rationally directed life. Aristotle's notion of a tripartite soul as

summarized in Table 1 illustrates a nested hierarchy of the functions and activities of the

soul. The degrees and functions of the soul are nested, such that the one which has a

higher degree of soul has all of

the lower degrees. Thus, on

the nutritive degree, all living

things, i.e., plants, animals,

and humans, require

nourishment and have the

ability to reproduce. On the

sensitive degree, only animals

and humans have the ability to move and perceive.

Finally, on the rational degree, only humans are capable of theoretical and practical

functions.

Following this, humans possess the nutritive, sensitive, and rational degrees of the soul.

More importantly, only humans are capable of a life guided by reason. Because this is so,

happiness, too, it is uniquely human function for it can only be achieved through a

rationally directed life.

D. Arête and Human Happiness

Eudaimonia is what defines the good life. To live a good life is to live a happy life. For

Aristotle, eudaimonia is only possible by living a life of virtue.

Arête, a Greek term, is defined as “excellence of any kind” and can also mean “moral

virtue.” A virtue is what makes one function well. Aristotle suggested two types of virtue:

intellectual virtue and moral virtue.

Intellectual virtue or virtue of thought is achieved through education, time, and

experience. Key intellectual virtues are wisdom, which guides ethical behavior, and

understanding, which is gained from scientific endeavors and contemplation. Wisdom

and understanding are achieved through formal and non-formal means. Intellectual

virtues are acquired through self-taught knowledge and skills as much as those knowledge

and skills taught and learned in formal institutions.

Moral virtue or virtue of character is achieved through habitual practice. Some key moral

virtues are generosity, temperance, and courage. Aristotle explained that although the

capacity for intellectual virtue is innate, it is brought into completion only by practice. It is

by repeatedly being unselfish that one develops the virtue of generosity. It Is by repeatedly

resisting and foregoing every inviting opportunity that one develops the virtue of

temperance. It is by repeatedly exhibiting the proper action and emotional response in

the face of danger that one develops the virtue of courage. By and large, moral virtue is

like a skill. A skill is acquired only through repeated practice. Everyone is capable of

learning how to play the guitar because everyone has an innate capacity for intellectual

virtue, but not everyone acquires it because only those who devote time and practice

develop the skill of playing the instrument

If one learns that eating too much fatty foods is bad for the health, he or she has to make

it a habit to stay away from this type of food because health contributes to living well and

doing well. If one believes that too much use of social media is detrimental to human

relationships and productivity, he or she must regulate his or her use of social media and

deliberately spend more time with friends, and family, and work than in virtual platform. If

one understands the enormous damage to the environment that plastic materials bring,

he or she must repeatedly forego the next plastic item he or she could do away with.

Good relationship dynamics and a healthy environment contribute to one's wellness, in

how he or she lives and what he or she does.

Both intellectual virtue and moral virtue should be in accordance with reason to achieve

eudaimonia. Indifference with these virtues, for reasons that are only for one's

convenience, pleasure, or satisfaction, leads humans away from eudaimonia.

 A virtue is ruined by any excess and deficiency in how one lives and acts. A balance

between two extremes is a requisite of virtue. This balance is a mean of excess not in the

sense of a geometric or arithmetic average. Instead, it is a mean relative to the person,

circumstances, and the right emotional response in every experience (NE 2:2; 2:6).

Consider the virtue of courage. Courage was earlier defined as displaying the right action

and emotional response in the face of danger. The virtue of courage is ruined by an

excess of the needed emotional and proper action to address a particular situation. A

person who does not properly assess the danger and is totally without fear may develop

the vice of foolhardiness or rashness. Also, courage is ruined by a deficiency of the

needed emotion and proper action. When one overthinks of a looming danger, that he or

she becomes too fearful and incapable of acting on the problem, he or she develops the

vice of cowardice.

E. What then is the good life?

Putting everything in perspective, the good life in the sense of eudaimonia is the state of

being happy, healthy, and prosperous in the way one thinks, lives, and acts. The path to

the good life consists of the virtues of thought and character, which are relative mediators

between the two extremes of excess and deficiency. In this way, the good life is

understood as happiness brought about by living a virtuous life.

One could draw parallels between moving toward the good life and moving toward

further progress and development in science and technology. In appraising the goodness

of the next medical procedure, the new social media trend, the latest mobile device, or

the upcoming technology for food safety, one must be guided by Aristotelian virtues.

Science and technology can be ruined by under- or over-appreciation of the scope and

function it plays in the pursuit of the uniquely human experience of happiness. Refusing

science and technology altogether to improve human life is as problematic as allowing it

to entirely dictate reason and action without any regard for ethical and moral standards.

By imposing on science and technology an ethical standard that is not dictated by itself,
 as C. S. Lewis proposed, not only will scientific advancement and technological

development flourish, but also the human person.

Activity

Instructions: Compare and contrast each pair of terms related to Aristotle’s Nichomachean

Ethics.

1. Instrumental Good – Ultimate Good

2. Pleasure – Happiness

3. Virtue – Vice

4. Intellectual Value – Moral Value

5. Science and Technology – The Good Life