Andrew Chau
Aristotle and the Meaning of Life
Aristotle’s definition of happiness requires us to conform to virtue and some
virtuous acts may include self-sacrifice. This idea seems problematic if good health or
material wealth is necessary to be happy. Our intuition would say that you cannot be
happy if you are poor, and certainly not if you are dead. However, the common view is
not always the correct one. I will argue first that Aristotle’s views are not contradictory
because for him the good of the soul supercedes the good of the body; and second, that if
our common sense notion of happiness is a goal, acting according to virtue is the only
rational choice.
My approach to the problem of reconciling self-sacrifice with happiness will
proceed in two steps. In the first section I will argue in defense of Aristotle that if we
accept his definition of eudaimonia, we must accept the possibility of self-sacrifice in
accordance with virtue. I will also support his beliefs about the role the body and
external goods may play in achieving eudaimonia through self-sacrifice. In the second
section I will argue that given Aristotle’s idea of eudaimonia combined with our common
sense idea of happiness, going to war for your country is the only rational choice. The
third section will include objections to my arguments and my replies to them.
Aristotle goes to great lengths in order to discover the telos, or goal, of life. He
formulates his notion of eudaimonia as, “an activity of the soul in conformity with
excellence or virtue (text 63).” The activity of soul is an introspective act using our
faculty for reason. Aristotle differentiates between speculative and non-speculative
virtue, the former is the activity of the soul and the latter is the activity of the body. He
believes that acting for external, non-rational reasons can only lead to a form of life and
1
Andrew Chau
happiness that is not divine and not eudaimonia (Welldon 346). Eudaimonia is not
simply choosing the divine-virtues by reason, but also acting on, or conforming to those
virtues. Aristotle points out that “in sleep the difference between a good man and a bad
man is least apparent – whence the saying that for half their lives the happy are no better
off than the wretched (text 67).” In other words virtue without integrity, that is, without
the will to act is not worth much. Eudaimonia then is rationally choosing to act from
virtue and actually performing that act. Virtue itself takes on many forms and Aristotle
acknowledges that in some cases virtue may require self-sacrifice. It is not even
necessary to examine the circumstances of such an occasion to see that acting out of selfsacrifice, if it is rationally chosen, does not contradict the notion of eudaimonia. If the
act is chosen because it is rationally the virtuous thing to do, then it fulfills all of the
requirements for happiness. A contradiction only arises when we posit our own intuitive
conception of happiness in place of Aristotle’s, but that will be addressed later. Selfsacrifice is not at all contradictory to Aristotle’s logical notion of eudaimonia in the
strictest sense.
The issue of selfless acts is taken up by Aristotle in a couple of instances. One
example he uses concerns giving up material wealth for the sake of friendship. He writes
that one would “surrender riches gladly if only he may enrich his friends; for then while
his friend gets the money, he gets the nobleness, and so assigns the greater good to
himself (Welldon 310).” The nobleness he writes of is not to be confused with prestige;
the noble self-sacrifice is a virtuous act therefore the greater good is the happiness
attained through conformity with virtue. Aristotle also writes that a good man would
even die for his friends or for his country. The logic behind this belief is the same as
2
Andrew Chau
before. If the rational virtuous action happens to be risking life and limb on the
battlefield, that is what one must do in order to be happy. If someone avoids battle
because they are cowardly they may continue to live, but they will not be happy.
Aristotle says that the virtuous man “would rather live one year nobly than many years
indifferently, and would rather perform one noble and lofty action than many poor
actions (310 Welldon).” The implication is that a good man would rather die happy than
live in disgrace. In both instances the act of self-sacrifice is compatible with Aristotle’s
notion of eudaimonia.
The problem arises only when our intuitive concept of happiness clashes with
Aristotle’s view. Many people believe that health, money, and honor are required to
achieve happiness. Furthermore, it may seem unnatural to prefer eudaimonia over selfpreservation. Reconsider the example of the virtuous man faced with the decision of
whether or not to go to war for his country. If he chooses to flee from battle he may
survive, but he will not have acted according to virtue so he cannot be happy in
Aristotle’s sense. If the man does choose to risk his life in battle he will either live or die.
In the case that the man lives, he survives and has conformed to virtue therefore he will
be happy (in the sense of eudaimonia). If he goes to battle and dies he was at least happy
when he lived. The point is that if he avoids battle he is choosing certain unhappiness,
but if he risks his life in battle he is choosing certain happiness and he may still live. If
someone holds the belief that nothing is worth dying for in any situation, then there is no
way to reconcile the notion of self-sacrifice as an act of virtue. It must also be stated that
such a person would not be considered the good man Aristotle speaks of, since the good
man would always choose rationally in accordance with virtue.
3