To explain happiness, Aristotle begins with the concept of good and questions what the definition of good really is. He defines good as the sake of which everything else is done, or the end and purpose of the particular activity in question. Good is always something specific and different for every action and arts. The example of architecture is provided, in which a house is the final purpose, making it the good. He further explains that the final end for anything we do, this is the good or goods achieved by the action if more than one. There can be several ends at which our actions aim but as we choose some of them as a means to something else. If there is one thing which alone is a final end, this thing or if there are several final ends, the end that is the most final will be the good we are seeking. Not all ends chosen for their own sakes but rather chosen for the sake of something else. When you apply this to an action, it means that in every pursuit, the final good is the end of that pursuit or understanding since for all it is the sake of the end of why everything is done. …show more content…
He supports his claim by explaining that honor, pleasure, intelligence, and virtue, are all chosen because while they are all goods, it is assumed that they lead to happiness as no one chooses happiness for the sake of honor, pleasure, or anything else. Aristotle then leads into another argument in which the final good is self-sufficient. He defines self-sufficient as something that makes life desirable and not lacking in any aspect. According to him, happiness fits this description, as happiness is the most desirable of all things to man. Therefore, he concludes that happiness is the end toward which all acts are directed; it is both final and