{"id":39,"date":"2021-03-22T13:45:04","date_gmt":"2021-03-22T13:45:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/nicomacheanethics\/chapter\/10-can-no-man-be-called-happy-during-life\/"},"modified":"2025-08-15T00:45:03","modified_gmt":"2025-08-15T00:45:03","slug":"10-can-no-one-be-called-happy-during-life","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/nicomacheanethics\/chapter\/10-can-no-one-be-called-happy-during-life\/","title":{"rendered":"Section 10: Can no one be called happy during life?"},"content":{"raw":"Should no one at all, then, be called happy [10]<\/sub> while he lives? Should we, as Solon says, see the end? Even if we are to accept this view, is it also the case that a person is happy when he is dead? Or is not this quite absurd, especially for us who say that happiness is an activity?\r\n\r\nBut if we do not say the dead person is living a happy life--and if Solon does not mean this either, [15]<\/sub> but instead means that one can only safely call a person blessed when he is at last beyond evils and misfortunes--this also affords matter for discussion. For it seems some things can end up being either bad and good for a dead person, just as some things can be bad or good for a person who is alive but not aware of them; for example, good or bad reputation, or the good or bad fortunes of one's children [20]<\/sub> and in general of one's descendants.\r\n\r\nBut this also presents a problem. For even if a person has lived happily up to old age and has had a death worthy of his life, many reversals of fortune might still befall his descendants. Some of his descendants might be good people and attain the good life they deserve, while with other of his descendants the opposite may be the case. [25]<\/sub> And clearly too the degrees of relationship between them and their ancestors may vary indefinitely. It would be odd, then, if the person who is already dead were to share in these changes and become at one time happy, at another wretched. But it would also be odd if the fortunes of the descendants did not for some time have some effect on the happy life of their ancestors. [30]<\/sub>\r\n\r\nBut we must return to our first difficulty. For perhaps by a consideration of it, our present problem might be solved. Now if we must see the end and only at that point call a person's life happy, not as being presently happy but as having been happy, surely this is a paradox, that when a person is happy the attribute that belongs to him is not to be truly attributed to him because we do not [35]<\/sub> wish to call anyone who is still living happy. And we don't want to call people still living happy due to the changes that might befall them, [1100b1]<\/sub> and because we have assumed a happy life to be something permanent and by not easily changed, while a single person may suffer many turns of fortune's wheel. For clearly if we were to keep pace with a person's luck, we would often call the same person happy and again miserable, [5]<\/sub> making the happy person's life out to be chameleon and insecurely based.\r\n\r\nOr is this keeping pace with a person's luck quite wrong? Success or failure in life does not depend on luck, but human life, as we said, needs some luck to be added, while virtuous activities or their opposites are what constitute a happy life or [10]<\/sub> the reverse.\r\n\r\nThe question we have now discussed confirms our definition of a happy life. For no function of a human being has so much permanence as virtuous activities. Indeed, virtuous activities seem to be more durable even than knowledge of the sciences and other disciplines. And of the kinds of knowledge, the most valuable are more durable because those who are happy [15]<\/sub> spend their life most readily and most continuously in these; for this seems to be the reason why we do not forget them.\r\n\r\nVirtuous activities, then, will belong to the happy person, and he will be happy throughout his life. For such a person will always, or more than anyone else, do actions and contemplate things in accordance with virtue. And he will bear what luck brings most nobly [20]<\/sub> and in the most suitable way, since he is 'truly good' and 'foursquare beyond reproach.'\r\n\r\nNow many events happen by chance, and events differing in importance. Small pieces of good fortune or of its opposite clearly do not weigh down the scales of life one way or the other. But a multitude of great events if they turn out well [25]<\/sub> will make a life happier, since by nature they will add beauty to life and the way a virtuous person deals with them will be noble and good. If, however, events turn out badly, they crush and disfigure a happy life, because they both bring pain with them and hinder many activities. Yet even in such bad circumstances the nobility of a virtuous life shines through, [30]<\/sub> when a person bears with resignation many great misfortunes, not because he is insensible to pain but because of nobility and greatness of soul.\r\n\r\nIf activities are, as we said, what gives life its character, the life of a happy person can't become a miserable life. For a happy and good person will never do acts that are hateful and base. For the person [35]<\/sub> who is truly good and wise, we think, bears all the luck in life in a fitting way [1101a1]<\/sub> and always makes the best of circumstances, just as a good general makes the best military use of the army at his command and a good shoemaker makes the best shoes out of the hides that are given to him; [5]<\/sub> and so with all other craftsmen.\r\n\r\nAnd if this is the case, the happy person can never become miserable, although he won't become blessed either, if he meets with fortunes like those of Priam.[footnote]Priam was the last king of Troy. When he was old, the city of Troy was sacked and destroyed, while he and his children and grandchildren were brutally killed or enslaved.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nNor, again, is the happy person many-colored and changeable. For neither will he be moved from his happy condition easily or by any ordinary misfortunes, but only by many great [10]<\/sub> and repeated misfortunes. From such great and repeated misfortunes, he will not recover a happy life in a short time, but if at all, only in a long and complete life in which he has attained many noble things.\r\n\r\nThen what prevents us from saying that a person is happy who is active in accord with complete virtue and is sufficiently equipped with external goods, [15]<\/sub> not for some random period but throughout a complete life? Or must we add that he will continue to live this way and to die this way? Certainly the future is obscure to us, while a happy life, we claim, is a goal and something in every way complete. If so, we will call happy those living people in whom these conditions are, and are to be, fulfilled--[20]<\/sub> but only happy in a human way, [with the future and the changes it might bring still unknown]. So much for these questions.","rendered":"

Should no one at all, then, be called happy [10]<\/sub> while he lives? Should we, as Solon says, see the end? Even if we are to accept this view, is it also the case that a person is happy when he is dead? Or is not this quite absurd, especially for us who say that happiness is an activity?<\/p>\n

But if we do not say the dead person is living a happy life–and if Solon does not mean this either, [15]<\/sub> but instead means that one can only safely call a person blessed when he is at last beyond evils and misfortunes–this also affords matter for discussion. For it seems some things can end up being either bad and good for a dead person, just as some things can be bad or good for a person who is alive but not aware of them; for example, good or bad reputation, or the good or bad fortunes of one’s children [20]<\/sub> and in general of one’s descendants.<\/p>\n

But this also presents a problem. For even if a person has lived happily up to old age and has had a death worthy of his life, many reversals of fortune might still befall his descendants. Some of his descendants might be good people and attain the good life they deserve, while with other of his descendants the opposite may be the case. [25]<\/sub> And clearly too the degrees of relationship between them and their ancestors may vary indefinitely. It would be odd, then, if the person who is already dead were to share in these changes and become at one time happy, at another wretched. But it would also be odd if the fortunes of the descendants did not for some time have some effect on the happy life of their ancestors. [30]<\/sub><\/p>\n

But we must return to our first difficulty. For perhaps by a consideration of it, our present problem might be solved. Now if we must see the end and only at that point call a person’s life happy, not as being presently happy but as having been happy, surely this is a paradox, that when a person is happy the attribute that belongs to him is not to be truly attributed to him because we do not [35]<\/sub> wish to call anyone who is still living happy. And we don’t want to call people still living happy due to the changes that might befall them, [1100b1]<\/sub> and because we have assumed a happy life to be something permanent and by not easily changed, while a single person may suffer many turns of fortune’s wheel. For clearly if we were to keep pace with a person’s luck, we would often call the same person happy and again miserable, [5]<\/sub> making the happy person’s life out to be chameleon and insecurely based.<\/p>\n

Or is this keeping pace with a person’s luck quite wrong? Success or failure in life does not depend on luck, but human life, as we said, needs some luck to be added, while virtuous activities or their opposites are what constitute a happy life or [10]<\/sub> the reverse.<\/p>\n

The question we have now discussed confirms our definition of a happy life. For no function of a human being has so much permanence as virtuous activities. Indeed, virtuous activities seem to be more durable even than knowledge of the sciences and other disciplines. And of the kinds of knowledge, the most valuable are more durable because those who are happy [15]<\/sub> spend their life most readily and most continuously in these; for this seems to be the reason why we do not forget them.<\/p>\n

Virtuous activities, then, will belong to the happy person, and he will be happy throughout his life. For such a person will always, or more than anyone else, do actions and contemplate things in accordance with virtue. And he will bear what luck brings most nobly [20]<\/sub> and in the most suitable way, since he is ‘truly good’ and ‘foursquare beyond reproach.’<\/p>\n

Now many events happen by chance, and events differing in importance. Small pieces of good fortune or of its opposite clearly do not weigh down the scales of life one way or the other. But a multitude of great events if they turn out well [25]<\/sub> will make a life happier, since by nature they will add beauty to life and the way a virtuous person deals with them will be noble and good. If, however, events turn out badly, they crush and disfigure a happy life, because they both bring pain with them and hinder many activities. Yet even in such bad circumstances the nobility of a virtuous life shines through, [30]<\/sub> when a person bears with resignation many great misfortunes, not because he is insensible to pain but because of nobility and greatness of soul.<\/p>\n

If activities are, as we said, what gives life its character, the life of a happy person can’t become a miserable life. For a happy and good person will never do acts that are hateful and base. For the person [35]<\/sub> who is truly good and wise, we think, bears all the luck in life in a fitting way [1101a1]<\/sub> and always makes the best of circumstances, just as a good general makes the best military use of the army at his command and a good shoemaker makes the best shoes out of the hides that are given to him; [5]<\/sub> and so with all other craftsmen.<\/p>\n

And if this is the case, the happy person can never become miserable, although he won’t become blessed either, if he meets with fortunes like those of Priam.[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Nor, again, is the happy person many-colored and changeable. For neither will he be moved from his happy condition easily or by any ordinary misfortunes, but only by many great [10]<\/sub> and repeated misfortunes. From such great and repeated misfortunes, he will not recover a happy life in a short time, but if at all, only in a long and complete life in which he has attained many noble things.<\/p>\n

Then what prevents us from saying that a person is happy who is active in accord with complete virtue and is sufficiently equipped with external goods, [15]<\/sub> not for some random period but throughout a complete life? Or must we add that he will continue to live this way and to die this way? Certainly the future is obscure to us, while a happy life, we claim, is a goal and something in every way complete. If so, we will call happy those living people in whom these conditions are, and are to be, fulfilled–[20]<\/sub> but only happy in a human way, [with the future and the changes it might bring still unknown]. So much for these questions.<\/p>\n

  1. Priam was the last king of Troy. When he was old, the city of Troy was sacked and destroyed, while he and his children and grandchildren were brutally killed or enslaved. ↵<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/div>","protected":false},"author":249,"menu_order":10,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[48],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-39","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry","chapter-type-numberless"],"part":20,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/nicomacheanethics\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/39","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/nicomacheanethics\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/nicomacheanethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/nicomacheanethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/249"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/nicomacheanethics\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/39\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":815,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/nicomacheanethics\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/39\/revisions\/815"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/nicomacheanethics\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/20"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/nicomacheanethics\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/39\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/nicomacheanethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/nicomacheanethics\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=39"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/nicomacheanethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=39"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/nicomacheanethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=39"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}