CHAPTER IV The Good Life

Lesson A:

Starting Accurately

Lesson Objectives:

At the end of this lesson, the students should be able to:

a. Examine what is meant by a good life;

b. Explain different schools of thought proposed by great philosophers;
c. Construct a collage containing photos or bits of information which deemed to
be evidences of living a good life
d. Make a reflection paper on how to attain “a good life” considering the
advances in science and technology

“Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end
of human existence.”― Aristotle

Introduction
Through the years, many attempted to answer the old and basic philosophical question,
“What is the good life?” “How to live a good life?” “What qualifies a good existence?”
Philosophers seek understanding of the relationship between the world and the reality to fully
grasp one’s flourished soul. In an attempt to understand reality and the external world, man
must understand himself, too.
In this module, we will shed light to these questions and find truth about what “a good
life” is as what every individual strives to attain throughout his or her life.

Stimulating Learning

Let’s do this!

Activity 6

Directions: From your own perspective, answer the following:

1. List down 10 things that would make your life well lived. Write your answers in your Activity
Notebook/Yellow Pad Paper. For those who will be submitting online, encode your answer in
the Sample Format File.
2. In 50-150 words, answer the following questions. Write your answers in your Activity
Notebook/Yellow Pad Paper. For those who will be submitting online, encode your answer in
the Sample Format File.

1
a. Do you think one can really achieve a good life in a man’s lifetime?
b. If yes, how is it possible or in what ways? If no, why?

Inculcating Concepts

Aristotle and How We All Aspire for a Good Life

It is interesting to note that the first philosopher who approached
the problem of reality from a “scientific” lens as we know now, is also the
first thinker who dabbled into the complex problematization of the end
goal of life: happiness. This man is none other than Aristotle.
Compared to his teacher and predecessor, Plato, Aristotle
embarked on a different approach in figuring out reality. In contrast to
Plato who thought that things in this world are not real and are only Figure 1. Aristotle
copies of the real in the world of forms, Aristotle puts everything back to
the ground in claiming that this world is all there is to it and that this world is the only reality
we can all access. For Plato, change is so perplexing that it can only make sense if there are
two realities: the world of forms and the world of matter. Consider the human person. When
you try to see yourself in front of the mirror, you normally say and think that you are looking at
yourself--- that is, you are the person who slept last night and you are the same person looking
at yourself now, despite the occasional changes like a new pimple that grows on your nose.
The same is true for a seed that you threw out of the garden last month. When you peek into
the same patch of land where the seed ingrained itself into, you may be surprised to see a little
plant showing itself to you and to the sun. Plato recognized change as a process and as a
phenomenon that happens in the world, that in fact, it is constant. However, Plato also claims
that despite the reality of change, things remain and they retain their ultimate “whatness”; that
you remain to be despite the pimple that now sits atop your nose. Plato was convinced that
reality is full of these seemingly contrasting manifestations of change and permanence. For
Plato, this can only be explained by postulating two aspects of reality, two worlds if you wish:
the world of forms and the world of matter. In the world of matter, things are changing and
impermanent. In the world of forms, the entities are only copies of the ideal and the models,
and the forms are the only real entities. Things are red in this world because they participate in
what it means to be red in the world of forms.

Aristotle, for his part, disagreed with his teacher’s position and forwarded the idea that
there is no reality over and above what the senses can perceive. As such, it is only by
observation of the external world that one can truly understand what reality is all about.
Change is a process that is inherent in things. We, along with all other entities in the world,
start as potentialities and move toward actualities. The movement, of course, entails change.
Consider a seed that eventually germinates and grows into a plant. The seed that turned to
become the plant underwent change-from the potential plant that is the seed to its full
actuality, the plant.

2
Aristotle extends this analysis from the external world into the province of the human
person and declares that even human beings are potentialities who aspire for their actuality.
Every human being moves according to some end. Every action that emanates from a human
person is a function of the purpose (telos) that the person has. When a boy asks for a burger
from a Filipino burger joint, the action that he takes is motivated primarily by the purpose that
he has, inferably to get full or to taste the burger that he only sees on TV. When a girl tries to
finish her degree in the university, despite the initial failures she may had, she definitely is
being propelled by a higher purpose than to just graduate. She wants something more, maybe
to have a license and land a promising job in the future. Every human person, according to
Aristotle, aspires for an end. This end, we have learned from the previous chapters, is
happiness or human flourishing.

No individual---young or old, fat or skinny, male or female--- resists happiness. We all

want to be happy. Aristotle claims that happiness is the be all and end all of everything that we
do. We may not realize it but the end goal of everything that we do is happiness. If you ask one
person why, he is doing what he is doing, he may not readily say that it is happiness that
motivates him. Hard-pressed to explain why he is motivated by what motivates him will reveal
that happiness is the grand, motivating force in everything that he does. When Aristotle claims
that we want to be happy, he does not necessarily mean the everyday happiness that we obtain
when we win a competition or we eat our favorite dish in a restaurant. What Aristotle actually
means is human flourishing, a kind of contentment in knowing that one is getting the best out
of life. A kind of feeling that one has maxed out his potentials in the world, that he has attained
the crux of his humanity.

What is Meant by a Good Life?

There are three ways by which we can understand what is meant by “a good life” or
“living well”. These are the Moral Life, Life of Pleasure and Fulfilled Life (Westacott, 2018).

What Does It Mean to Live the Good Life?

By Emrys Westacott

What is “the good life”? This is one of the oldest philosophical questions. It has been posed in
different ways—How should one live? What does it mean to “live well”?—but these are really just the
same question. After all, everyone wants to live well, and no one wants “the bad life.”
But the question isn’t as simple as it sounds. Philosophers specialize in unpacking hidden
complexities, and the concept of the good life is one of those that needs quite a bit of unpacking.

The Moral Life

One basic way we use the word “good” is to express moral approval. So when we say someone
is living well or that they have lived a good life, we may simply mean that they are a good person,
someone who is courageous, honest, trustworthy, kind, selfless, generous, helpful, loyal, principled,
and so on.
They possess and practice many of the most important virtues. And they don’t spend all their

3
time merely pursuing their own pleasure; they devote a certain amount of time to activities that
benefit others, perhaps through their engagement with family and friends, or through their work, or
through various voluntary activities.
This moral conception of the good life has had plenty of champions. Socrates and Plato both
gave absolute priority to being a virtuous person over all other supposedly good things such as
pleasure, wealth, or power.
In Plato’s dialogue Gorgias, Socrates takes this position to an extreme. He argues that it is
much better to suffer wrong than to do it; that a good man who has his eyes gouged out and is
tortured to death is more fortunate than a corrupt person who has used wealth and power
dishonorably.
In his masterpiece, the Republic, Plato develops this argument in greater detail. The morally
good person, he claims, enjoys a sort of inner harmony, whereas the wicked person, no matter how
rich and powerful he may be or how many pleasure he enjoys, is disharmonious, fundamentally at
odds with himself and the world.
It is worth noting, though, that in both the Gorgias and the Republic, Plato bolsters his
argument with a speculative account of an afterlife in which virtuous people are rewarded and wicked
people are punished.
Many religions also conceive of the good life in moral terms as a life lived according to God’s
laws. A person who lives this way—obeying the commandments and performing the proper rituals—
is pious. And in most religions, such piety will be rewarded. Obviously, many people do not receive
their reward in this life.
But devout believers are confident that their piety will not be in vain. Christian martyrs went
singing to their deaths confident that they would soon be in heaven. Hindus expect that the law of
karma will ensure that their good deeds and intentions will be rewarded, while evil actions and desires
will be punished, either in this life or in future lives.

The Life of Pleasure

The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus was one of the first to declare, bluntly, that what
makes life worth living is that we can experience pleasure. Pleasure is enjoyable, it’s fun,
it’s...well...pleasant! The view that pleasure is the good, or, to put I another way, that pleasure is
what makes life worth living, is known as hedonism.
The word “hedonist,” when applied to a person, has slightly negative connotations. It
suggests that they are devoted to what some have called the “lower” pleasures such as sex, food,
drink, and sensual indulgence in general.
Epicurus was thought by some of his contemporaries to be advocating and practicing this
sort of lifestyle, and even today an “epicure” is someone who is especially appreciative of food and
drink. But this is a misrepresentation of Epicureanism. Epicurus certainly praised all kinds of pleasures.
But he didn’t advocate that we lose ourselves in sensual debauchery for various reasons:
 Doing so will probably reduce our pleasures in the long run since over-indulgence tends to
cause health problems and limit the range of pleasure we enjoy.

 The so-called “higher” pleasures such as friendship and study are at least as important as
“pleasures of the flesh."
 The good life has to be virtuous. Although Epicurus disagreed with Plato about the value of
pleasure, he fully agreed with him on this point.
Today, this hedonistic conception of the good life is arguably dominant in Western culture.
Even in everyday speech, if we say someone is “living the good life,” we probably mean that they
enjoying lots of recreational pleasures: good food, good wine, skiing, scuba diving, lounging by the

4
pool in the sun with a cocktail and a beautiful partner.
What is key to this hedonistic conception of the good life is that it emphasizes subjective
experiences. On this view, to describe a person as “happy” means that they “feel good,” and a happy
life is one that contains many “feel good” experiences.

The Fulfilled Life

If Socrates emphasizes virtue and Epicurus emphasizes pleasure, another great Greek
thinker, Aristotle, views the good life in a more comprehensive way. According to Aristotle, we all
want to be happy.
We value many things because they are a means to other things. For instance, we value
money because it enables us to buy things we want; we value leisure because it gives us time to
pursue our interests. But happiness is something we value not as a means to some other end but for
its own sake. It has intrinsic value rather than instrumental value.
So for Aristotle, the good life is a happy life. But what does that mean? Today, many people
automatically think of happiness in subjectivist terms: To them, a person is happy if they are enjoying
a positive state of mind, and their life is happy if this is true for them most of the time.
There is a problem with this way of thinking about happiness in this way, though. Imagine a
powerful sadist who spends much of his time gratifying cruel desires. Or imagine a pot-smoking, beer-
guzzling couch potato who does nothing but sit around all day watching old TV shows and playing
video games. These people may have plenty of pleasurable subjective experiences. But should we
really describe them as “living well”?
Aristotle would certainly say no. He agrees with Socrates that to live the good life one must
be a morally good person. And he agrees with Epicurus that a happy life will involve many and varied
pleasurable experiences. We can’t really say someone is living the good life if they are often miserable
or constantly suffering.
But Aristotle’s idea of what it means to live well is objectivist rather than subjectivist. It isn’t
just a matter of how a person feels inside, although that does matter. It’s also important that certain
objective conditions be satisfied.
For instance:

 Virtue: They must be morally virtuous.

 Health: They should enjoy good health and reasonably long life.
 Prosperity: They should be comfortably off (for Aristotle this meant affluent enough so that
they don’t need to work for a living doing something that they would not freely choose to do.)
 Friendship: They must have good friends. According to Aristotle human beings are innately
social; so the good life can’t be that of a hermit, a recluse, or a misanthrope.
 Respect: They should enjoy the respect of others. Aristotle doesn’t think that fame or glory is
necessary; in fact, a craving for fame can lead people astray, just as the desire for excessive
wealth can. But ideally, a person’s qualities and achievements will be recognized by others.
 Luck: They need good luck. This is an example of Aristotle’s common sense. Any life can be
rendered unhappy by tragic loss or misfortune.
 Engagement: They must exercise their uniquely human abilities and capacities. This is why
the couch potato is not living well, even if they report that they are content. Aristotle argues
that what separates human beings from the other animals is the human reason. So the good
life is one in which a person cultivates and exercises their rational faculties by, for instance,
engaging in scientific inquiry, philosophical discussion, artistic creation, or legislation. Were he
alive today he might well include some forms of technological innovation.
If at the end of your life you can check all these boxes then you could reasonably claim to

5
have lived well, to have achieved the good life. Of course, the great majority of people today do not
belong to the leisure class as Aristotle did. They have to work for a living.
But it’s still true that we think the ideal circumstance is to be doing for a living what you
would choose to do anyway. So people who are able to pursue their calling are generally regarded as
extremely fortunate.

The Meaningful Life

Recent research shows that people who have children are not necessarily happier than
people who don’t have children. Indeed, during the child-raising years, and especially when children
have turned into teenagers, parents typically have lower levels of happiness and higher levels of
stress. But even though having children may not make people happier, it does seem to give them the
sense that their lives are more meaningful.
For many people, the well-being of their family, especially their children and grandchildren,
is the main source of meaning in life. This outlook goes back a very long way. In ancient times, the
definition of good fortune was to have lots of children who do well for themselves.
But obviously, there can be other sources of meaning in a person’s life. They may, for
instance, pursue a particular kind of work with great dedication: e.g. scientific research, artistic
creation, or scholarship. They may devote themselves to a cause: e.g. fighting against racism or
protecting the environment. Or they may be thoroughly immersed in and engaged with some
particular community: e.g. a church, a soccer team, or a school.

The Finished Life

The Greeks had a saying: Call no man happy until he’s dead. There is wisdom in this. In fact,
one might want to amend it to: Call no man happy until he’s long dead. For sometimes a person can
appear to live a fine life, and be able to check all the boxes—virtue, prosperity, friendship, respect,
meaning, etc.—yet eventually be revealed as something other than what we thought they were.
A good example of this Jimmy Saville, the British TV personality who was much admired in
his lifetime but who, after he died, was exposed as a serial sexual predator.
Cases like this bring out the great advantage of an objectivist rather than a subjectivist
notion of what it means to live well. Jimmy Saville may have enjoyed his life. But surely, we would not
want to say that he lived the good life. A truly good life is one that is both enviable and admirable in
all or most of the ways outlined above.

Happiness as the Ultimate Goal of a Good Life

In the eighteenth century, John Stuart Mill declared the Greatest Happiness Principle by
saying that an action is right as far as it maximizes the attainment of happiness for the greatest
number of people. At a time when people when people were sceptical about claims on the
metaphysical, people could not make sense of the human flourishing that Aristotle talked about
in the days of old. Mill said that individual happiness of each individual should be prioritized and
collectively dictates the kind of action that should be endorsed. Consider the pronouncements
against mining. When an action benefits the greatest number of people, said action is deemed
ethical. Does mining benefit rather than hurt the majority? Does it offer more benefit rather
than disadvantages? Does mining result in more people getting happy rather than sad? If the
answers to the said questions are in the affirmative, then the said action, mining, is deemed
ethical.

6
The ethical is, of course, meant to lead us to the good and happy life. Through the
ages, as has been expounded in the previous chapters, man has constantly struggled with the
external world in order to reach human flourishing. History has given birth to different schools
of thought, all of which aim for the good and happy life.

Schools of Thought

1. Materialism

The first materialists were the atomists in

Ancient Greece. The atomist philosophers thought
that universe and matter are made up of atoms
“atomos” or seeds. These are indivisible particles, Figure 2. Leucippus and
Democritus (460-370 BC)
assembled by chance and in a purely mechanical
way. The founders of this theory was the Greek
philosopher Leucippus and his disciple Democritus (around 460-370 B.C.). This belief aims that
comfort, pleasure, and wealth are the only highest goals.

2. Hedonism

Epicurus continued the theory of materialism, which does not

but any notion of afterlife. The hedonists see the end goal of life is
attaining pleasure. For hedonists, since life is limited, one must indulge
itself with pleasures --- “Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we
die”. They strive to maximize their total pleasure, the difference of
pleasure and pain, and if the pleasure was finally gained, happiness
remains fixed.
Figure 3. Epicurus
3. Stoicism

Stoicism is one of the schools of thought in

philosophy created for those who live their lives in the
real world. It was founded in Athens by Zeno of Citium
(early 3rd century B.C.). Stoicism asserts that virtue (e.g.
wisdom) is happiness and judgement should be based
acts on behavior rather than words. People do not have Figure 4. Marcus Aurelius, one of the
any control and must not rely on external events, only for principal leaders of stoicism
themselves and their responses. This philosophy, helps a
person to overcome destructive emotions and acts on what can be acted upon. Stoicism also
differs from other schools of thought with its purpose as a practical application rather than
intellectual enterprise.

4. Theism

7
The ultimate basis of happiness for theists is the communion with God. They believe
that they can find meaning of their lives by using God as the creator of their existence. Theism
is a belief that one or more gods exist within the universe, and that gods are often omniscient
(all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and omnipresent (all-pervasive). This belief
incorporates Monotheism (belief in one god) and Polytheism (belief in many gods). The
Abrahamic faiths such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, as well as Hinduism are all theistic
religions.

5. Humanism

Humanism is another school of thought that affirms that

human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning
and shape their own lives. “It is not theistic and does not accept
supernatural views of reality”--- IHEU, International Humanist and
Ethical Union.

Further, humanists see themselves not only as the

stewards of creation but as individuals who have control for themselves as well as the world
outside them. Most scientists dwell on this thought that the world is a place for discovery in
seeking ways on how to improve the lives of its inhabitants. As a result, scientists eventually
turn technology to ease the difficulty of life, that is, to live comfortably.

Summary

One can never be sure of anything in this lifetime. This is the very reason why humans
keep on learning, looking for answers and listening to another’s story. This is exactly what
makes life obscure, challenging yet worth living. Every human person is in pursuit of happiness
and to live the life we think is good. With the discussion of the different schools of thought, we
have grasp understanding on varied keys to finding happiness. Science and technology played
essential role on man’s attempt to finding happiness. As science and technology advances, the
complexities of life are also observed. The important thing that man needs to do is to keep
these advances in the right path of aiming how to live a good life for the majority.

Using/ Applying Knowledge

8
Activity 7

Questions:
1. How are you living your life now?
2. Can you consider that you are living the good life?
3. What are the things that you do or think that makes it a good life?

Directions:
I. Answer these questions by constructing a collage that contains photos or bits of
information as evidences of you living a simple yet a good life. Put your collage in a short
size bond paper and submit. For those who will be submitting online, encode your answer
in the Sample Format File.
II. In 50-150 words, make a reflection paper on how to attain “a good life” considering the
advances in science and technology. Write your answer in your Activity Notebook/Yellow
Pad Paper. For those who will be submitting online, encode your answer in the Sample
Format File.

Evaluating Understanding

Answer this!
I. Identification
Direction: Identify what school of thought is being manifested by the given statement.
______________1. Some people are clinging on to their wealth as the primary source of the
meaning of their existence.
______________2. Happiness can only be attained by a careful practice of apathy.
______________3. Man is the captain of his own ship, free from the shackles of a God who
controls and monitors.
______________4. Believes in the mantra, “Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die”
______________5. People base their life goals on beliefs on supernatural reality.
II. Essay
Direction: Answer the questions briefly and concisely. Do it in your own words.
1. According to Aristotle, how do we live a good life?
2. Does science and technology help us attain a good and happy life? How and why?
3. Based on the article of Emrys Westacott, “What Does It Mean to Live the Good Life?”
how can one achieve a good life?

Upgrading Competence and Expanding Insights

9
To further enhance your knowledge, please do the following:

A. Watch the short film “Village of the Watermills by Akira Kurosawa and video clip
“Modern Good Life.”
B. Read the article titled: “Form vs. Matter” in the website Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy.

References:

Prieto, N. G., Vega, V. A., Felipe, E.F., & Meneses, J. L., (2019). The Good Life. Science,
Technology, and Society. Lorimar Publishing, Inc. Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines. pp 39-
47.

Reason and Meaning. Aristotle on the Good Life. (2013). Accessed August 12, 2020.
http://www.reason-and-meaning.com

Serafica, J. P. J., Paliwen, G. T., Caslib, B. N., Alata, E. J. P. (2018). The Good Life. Science,
Technology and Society. Rex Book Store, Inc. Manila, Philippines. Pp75-83.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2020). Form vs. Matter. Accessed August 12, 2020.
https://good.life.form.vs.matter/stanfordencyclopediaofphilosophy.html

Westacott E. (2020). What does it mean to live the good life? Accessed August 12, 2020.
https://www.thoughtco.com

10