In this paper I will discuss Aristotle's view on Eudaimonia. I will also state John Stuart Mill's argument of Utilitarianism and contrast it to Aristotle's view. I will then explain why Aristotle's view prevails over the ideas proposed by Mill. .
Aristotle claims that all human action is for the sake of something (has an end). Things can be an end of human action only to the extent that they are seen as good to the agent. Therefore things can be goods only if they are a plausible end. Aristotle claims that the ultimate human good and end is Eudaimonia; or happiness, flourishing.
According to Aristotle all things have functions, and happiness is found when a thing can best fulfill its function. He states that for anything that has a characteristic activity (function), its good or excellence lies in that character activity. This premise gives way to the idea that the characteristic activity of anything is particular to that thing. Aristotle then claims that only human beings engage in a certain kind of rational activity, in which the function of human beings is activity of soul in accordance with reason, or at least not a part from reason. Therefore, happiness for humans is rational activity in accordance with virtue.
Aristotle shows that in order to be a virtuous person you must know what you are doing and why it is good. You must also choose the action for its own sake, without the thought of reproductions. And finally, the action must proceed from a firm and unshakeable state of character. Aristotle defines virtue as a mean of two vices; the vice of deficiency and the vice of excess; in which having too much or too little of one specific virtue (e.g. courage) does not make you a virtuous person.
Aristotle is an egoist, and he displays this as his theory of Eudaimonia is strictly based on an individual's happiness. He shows that it is mere coincidence if the correct actions of one person promote general happiness to others.