re: #978 Aceofwhat?

first of all - haven’t heard eudaimonia in too long. well done there.

second - and here’s where i have fun - given our evolutionary background, it is exceedingly difficult (i don’t believe that Aristotle ever tried, but i’d guess you’re better-read than i am) to explain how eudaimonia is a natural result of ‘good works’.

Darwinistically, it makes no sense. I agree that i do feel good when I help someone else for no reason other than to help them. It’s practically euphoric. But it runs quite counter to what evolutionary biology would predict.

Eudaimonia is the result of leading a good life, which is also the result of having a good character. The good man for aristotle is one who has a character such that his actions are also good— he uses reason appropriately. Character based ethics like that fall down a bit because there’s a bit of circle, though not a vicious one, in explaining why it should be that one has the character one does.
There’s quite a bit of work on why altruism would evolve, and why it is a ‘selected-for’ trait (sort of) in certain communities. There’s a chapter in Dawkin’s selfish gene on some of that IIRC. There’s also some work in game theory (prisoner’s dilemma sort of stuff) that would apply as well.