Explain Aristotles concept of Eudaimonia

In the series of lectures entitled Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle describes his

philosophy, concluding with what he sees as the meaning of life- Eudaimonia, or
the ultimate aim. There is no translation in English, but Aristotle defined
Eudaimonia as the Greatest Good and the end of all aims, and the contemplation
thereof the highest happiness achievable.
This Ultimate aim is derived from the belief that every action, consciously or
not, is directed to some kind of aim: Every art and every investigation and
similarly every action is considered to act towards some good. By working
through aim after aim, Aristotle said that the Ultimate aim would be achieved.
Eudaimonia is the Superior aim, and every other aim is subordinate to it. For
example, my ultimate aim might be to create a really nice cake, but the making
of the batter is subordinate to the cake, the preparation of the ingredients
subordinate again to mixing them together properly. I must complete each
subordinate aim before I am allowed to achieve the superior.
To be able to follow aims and work our way successfully towards the goal of Life
Eudaimonia, Aristotle stated that we must be able to live and choose virtuouslyor to be aware of the Golden Mean. According to Nichomachean ethics, the thing
that separates humanity from vegetable matter or sentient animals is the ability
to reason. This is the basis of virtue ethics, which Aristotle believed essential to
achieve Eudaimonia. We, the moral agent, are responsible for our moral choices
and need not adhere to any set of rules such as religious doctrines. Instead, by
following the Doctrine of the Mean, we can use our innate power of reason to
regulate our emotions in order to make decisions that are not characterised with
either excess or deficiency. For instance, if I am in a situation which requires that
I act with courage when making my decisions- perhaps standing up for a friend
who has been wrongly accused of something- then I must adhere to the doctrine
of the mean and act courageously to achieve the best possible outcome for the
group involved. To act with deficiency would mean cowardice, which would be
useless; to act with excess would be to act rashly, which would be equally as
useless. Instead I must stand up for my friend and help the situation through
mediation. This is an example of a moral virtue, but Aristotle also describes the
existence of intellectual virtues- an example of which would be wisdom. He said
that Eudaimonia would be achieved if we developed both our Moral and
Intellectual virtues, by practise and instruction respectively. As in the example
above, I would have practised the virtue of courage for getting involved in a risky
situation, while helping the group develop the intellectual virtue of Rational
Thought through mediation.
Aristotle said that everyone has the potential to achieve Eudaimonia, but
accepted that everyone was different and so could not dedicate their lies to
achieving it like he himself was privileged enough to, and indeed, that in other
civilisations the concept of what is virtuous and what is not varied from his own.
Instead, the best way of practising living virtuously was through friendship and
interaction with the community: humans are social and political creatures. So

therefore in any society no matter how diverse, friendship would be present and
virtuous living possible. In other words, without friendship, none of the virtuesmoral or intellectual- would be of any value, and Eudaimonia an impossibility.
In the modern day, to explain Aristotles concept of Eudaimonia fully, it is helpful
to compare it to modern interpretations of the Greatest Good. Similar to Aristotle,
Alasdair Macintyre believed the best way to reach the good life was through
practising virtuous living through the community, but unlike Aristotle believes
that there are commonly agreed virtues and that a moral society is one in which
people recognise these virtues and aspire to meet them. But he agrees with
Aristotle in the effect that everyone in that community has the potential to
achieve Eudaimonia, and the meta-ethical concept of what Eudaimonia really is
remains unchanged: The aim of all aims, the greatest good and the highest of all
happiness, attained by contemplation or friendship.