Module 5

THE GOOD LIFE

This section 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 arete, and how these can be used to assess one’s relationship
and dealings with science and technology. As such, the section also aims to answer the question, “Are
we living a good life?

Intended Learning Outcomes

At the end of this section, the students should be able to:

1. Define the idea of the good life.

2. Discuss Aristotle’s concept of Eudaimonia and arete; and
3. Examine contemporary issues and contemporary issues guided by ethical standards leading to a
good life.

Diagnostics

Instructions: On the space provided, write whether you AGREE or DISAGREE with statement.

_______1. The purpose of life is happiness.

_______2. Happiness comes from pleasure, wealth, and recognition.

_______3. Happiness means merely feeling good or joyful.

_______4. Reason is an important element of human happiness.

_______5. To achieve happiness, humans must pursue only extremely positive things.

_______6. A life of happiness is a result of a balance between two extremes.

_______7. A happy life is a virtuous life.

_______8. Intellectual and moral virtues are the ingredients of happiness.

_______9. It is not the role of science and technology to guide humans toward a virtuous life.

______10. Ethical standards must be imposed upon science and technology to avoid excesses and

deficiencies.

Are we living a good life? This question is inarguably one universal human concern. Everyone
aims to lead a good life. Yet, what constitutes a happy and contented life varies from person to person.
Unique backgrounds, experiences, social contexts, and even preferences make it difficult to subscribe to
a unified standard on which to tease out the meaning of the goof life.’ Thus, the prospect of a standard
of the good life—one that resonates across unique human experiences—is inviting.

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 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 guide by some ethical bases that is not dictated by science itself.” is
Aristotle “One such ethical basis is Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics.

Aristotle, who live 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 Philosophy.’

Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics, the fundamental basis of Aristotelian ethics, consists of ten
books. Originally, the 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 dedicated to Aristotle’s father who was of the
same name.

The Nichommachean Ethics, abbreviated as NE or sometimes. EN based on the Latin version of

the name, is a treatise on the nature of moral life and human happiness based on the unique essence of
human nature. The NE is particularly useful in defining what a good life is.

Everyone has definition of what good is—getting a college degree, travelling across the w5orld,
succeeding in a business venture, pursuing a healthy and active lifestyle, or being a responsible parent.
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 action aims at some good. However, some
actions at an instrumental good while some aim at an intrinsic good. He made it clear that the ultimate
good is better than the instrumental good for the later is good as a means to achieving something else or
some other end while the former is good in itself.
Eudaimonia: The Ultimate Good

What then is the ultimate good? Based on the contrast between two types of good, one could
reflect on some potential candidates for the ultimate good.

One night think that pleasure is the ultimate good. One aims for pleasure in the food they eat in
the experiences they immerse themselves in. 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 ultimate
good because it is not self-sufficient and does not stop one from aiming for some other ‘greater’ good.

Another candidate for the ultimate good is fame and honor. Many people today seem to be
motivated by a desire to be known—to be famous. Others strive to be motivated by a desire to be
known—to be those people who use social media to acquire large virtual following on 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 done 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.

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 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 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, is a uniquely human function for it can only be achieved through a
rationally directed life.

Arete and Human Happiness

Eudaimonia is what defines a 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.

Arete, 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 are wisdom,
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 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 forget 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
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 means of excess not in the sense of a geometric
or arithmetic average. Instead, it is a means relative to the person, circumstances, and the right
emotional response in every experience (NE2:2; 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.

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
virtuous life.

One could draw parallels between moving toward further progress and development in Science and
Technology the good life and further progress. In appraising the goodness of the next medical
procedure, the new social media trend, the latest Mobile device, or 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 standards that is not
dictated by itself, as C. S. Lewis proposed, will scientific. advancement and technological development
Flourish, but also the human person.

Exercise 1. Reading Comprehension Task

Instructions: Compare and contrast each pair of terms related to Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics as
discussed in this module.

1. Instrumental Good - Ultimate Good

 2. Pleasure – Happiness

3. Virtue – Vice

4. Intellectual Virtue – Moral Virtue

5. Science and Technology – The Good Life

Exercise 2. Group Discussion and Reporting

Instructions: Watch the documentary film, That Sugar Film (2014), directed by Damon Garneau.
After watching the film, discuss your ideas on how the overproduction and overconsumption of sugar-
based products potentially prevent humans from achieving eudaimonia. Is there indeed a need for
industries to reduce their consumption if they are to journey toward the good life together? Prepare a
power point presentation of the summary of your discussion with no more than seven slides and be
ready to share your idea in front of the class.