Within the given extract from Aristotle's ‘Nicomachean Ethics’ one’s interpretation is that Aristotle aims to continue the discussion on what makes a Good Life, which specific focus on what exactly the Good is. Aristotle starts by explaining that cultured men, educated and successful, “identify the Good with honour” as this is perceived to be the “goal of the political life”. Aristotle disagrees with identification, justifying this by explaining honour to be a superficial argument, being that it focuses on the gaining of something (ie power) over others, which is ultimately not Good motivation. Aristotle sees it that “People[...]seek honour in order to convince themselves of their own goodness”. Many would argue that to act only to justify one's own actions is not the entirety of the Good Life, as it has selfish motivations and selfishness is not part of the true nature of the Good Life. Aristotle argument continues, “goodness rather than honour is the end pursued in public life”. Perhaps here it can be said that ‘goodness’ is the unselfish pursuit …show more content…
Due to taking the Good Life to only be acting in accordance with goodness, this levels all lives, whether one is suffering or living in luxury, where in reality it is not the case that any life can be a Good Life if only one lives in accordance with goodness. However, it can be said that just because one suffers all their life does not mean they have to be unhappy though one feels that this is not what Aristotle is meaning to argue. Instead, one believes Aristotle to accept that suffering does not mean a bad life, however, this fact in itself means that goodness is not enough for a Good Life and that the true nature of the Good Life is not revealed in