"Eudaimonia" was a central concept in ancient Greek ethics along with the term "arete" most often translated as "virtue" and "phronesis" often translated as "practical or moral wisdom."2 In classical Greek eudaimonia was used as a term for the highest human good and so it became the aim of practical philosophy including ethics and political philosophy to consider what it really is and how it can be achieved.

Discussion of the links between virtue of character (ethik aret) and happiness (eudaimonia) is one of the central preoccupations of ancient ethics and a subject of much disagreement. As a result there are many varieties of eudaimonism. Two of the most influential forms are those of Aristotle3 and the Stoics. Aristotle takes virtue and its exercise to be the most important constituent in eudaimonia but does acknowledge the importance of external goods such as health wealth and beauty. By contrast the Stoics make virtue necessary and sufficient for eudaimonia and thus deny the necessity of external goods. Contents 1 Etymology and translation 2 Definition 3 Main views on eudaimonia and its relation to arte 3.1 Socrates 3.2 Plato 3.3 Aristotle 3.4 Epicurus 3.5 The Stoics 4 Eudaimonia and modern moral philosophy 5 Eudaimonia and modern Psychology 6 See also 7 References 8 Further reading 9 External links Etymology and translation

In terms of its etymology eudaimonia is an abstract noun derived from the Greek adjective eudaimon. This adjective is in turn a compound word composed of eu meaning well and daimon (daemon) which refers to a sort of guardian spirit.3 Therefore to be eudaimon is to live well protected and looked after by a benevolent spirit. Despite this etymology however discussions of eudaimonia in ancient Greek ethics are often conducted independently of any super-natural significance.

In his Nicomachean Ethics (1095a1522) Aristotle says that eudaimonia means doing and living well. It is significant that synonyms for eudaimonia are living well and doing well. On the standard English translation this would be to say that happiness is doing well and living well. However it is important to notice that happiness does not entirely capture the meaning of the Greek word here. One important difference is that happiness often connotes being or tending to be in a certain pleasant state of consciousness. For example when we say of someone that he is a very happy man we usually mean that he seems subjectively contented with the way things are going in his life. We mean to imply that he feels good about the way things are going for him. In contrast eudaimonia is a more encompassing notion than happiness since events that do not contribute to ones experience of happiness may affect ones eudaimonia.

Eudaimonia depends on all the things that would make us happy if we knew of their existence but quite independently of whether we do know about them. Ascribing eudaimonia to a person then may include ascribing such things as being virtuous being loved and having good friends. But these are all objective judgments about someones life: they concern a persons really being virtuous really being loved and really having fine friends. This implies that a person who has evil sons and daughters will not be judged to be eudaimon even if he or she does not know that they are evil and feels pleased and contented with the way they have turned out (happy). Conversely being loved by your children would not count towards your happiness if you did not know that they loved you (and perhaps thought that they did not) but it would count towards your eudaimonia. So eudaimonia corresponds to the idea of having an objectively good or desirable life to some extent independently of whether one knows that certain things exist or not. It includes conscious experiences of well being success and failure but also a whole lot more. (See Aristotles discussion: Nicomachean Ethics book 1.101.11.)

Because of this discrepancy between the meaning of eudaimonia and happiness some alternative translations have been proposed. W.D. Ross suggests well-being and John Cooper proposes "flourishing." These translations may avoid some of the misleading associations carried by "happiness" although each tends to raise some problems of its own. Perhaps the safest alternative is to leave the term un-translated (transliterated) allowing its meaning to emerge by considering how it was actually used by the ancient ethical philosophers. Definition

In his Nicomachean Ethics (21; 1095a1522) Aristotle says that everyone agrees that eudaimonia is the highest good for human beings but that there is substantial disagreement on what sort of life counts as doing and living well; i.e. eudaimon:

Verbally there is a very general agreement; for both the general run of men and people of superior refinement say that it is eudaimonia and identify living well and faring well with being happy; but with regard to what eudaimonia is they differ and the many do not give the same account as the wise. For the former think it is some plain and obvious thing like pleasure wealth or honour 1095a174 So as Aristotle points out saying that eudaimon life is a life which is objectively desirable and means living well is not saying very much. Everyone wants to be eudaimon; and everyone agrees that being eudaimon is related to faring well and to an individuals well being. The really difficult question is to specify just what sort of activities enable one to live well. Aristotle presents various popular conceptions of the best life for human beings. The candidates that he mentions are a (1) life of pleasure (2) a life of political activity and (3) a philosophical life. One important move in Greek philosophy to answer the question of how to achieve eudaimonia is to bring in another important concept in ancient philosophy "arete" ("virtue"). Aristotle says that the eudaimon life is one of virtuous activity in accordance with reason 1097b221098a20. And even Epicurus who argues that the eudaimon life is the life of pleasure maintains that the life of pleasure coincides with the life of virtue. So the ancient ethical theorists tend to agree that virtue is closely bound up with happiness (arte is bound up with eudaimonia). However they disagree on the way in which this is so. We shall consider the main theories in a moment but first a warning about the proper translation of arte. As already noted the Greek word arte is usually translated into English as virtue. One problem with this is that we are inclined to understand virtue in a moral sense which is not always what the ancients had in mind. For a Greek arte pertains to all sorts of qualities we would not regard as relevant to ethics for example physical beauty. So it is important to bear in mind that the sense of virtue operative in ancient ethics is not exclusively moral and includes more than states such as wisdom courage and compassion. The sense of virtue which arte connotes would include saying something like "speed is virtue in a horse" or "height is a virtue in a basketball player". Doing anything well requires virtue and each characteristic activity (such as carpentry flute playing etc.) has its own set of virtues. The alternative translation excellence might be helpful in conveying this general meaning of the term. The moral virtues are simply a subset of the general sense in which a human being is capable of functioning well or excellently. Main views on eudaimonia and its relation to arte Socrates French painter David portrayed the philosopher in The Death of Socrates (1787). What we know of Socrates' philosophy is almost entirely derived from Platos writings. Scholars typically divide Platos works into three periods: the early middle and late periods. They tend to agree also that Platos earliest works quite faithfully represent the teachings of Socrates and that Platos own views which go beyond those of Socrates appear for the first time in the middle works such as the Phaedo and the Republic. This division will be employed here in dividing up the positions of Socrates and Plato on eudaimonia. As with all other ancient ethical thinkers Socrates thought that all human beings wanted eudaimonia more than anything else. (see Plato Apology 30b Euthydemus 280d282d Meno 87d89a). However Socrates adopted a quite radical form of eudaimonism (see above): he seems to have thought that virtue is both necessary and sufficient for eudaimonia. Socrates is convinced that virtues such as self-control courage justice piety wisdom and related qualities of mind and soul are absolutely crucial if a person is to lead a good and happy (eudaimon) life. Virtues guarantee a happy life eudaimonia. For example in the Meno with respect to wisdom he says: everything the soul endeavours or endures under the guidance of wisdom ends in happinessMeno 88c. In the Apology Socrates clearly presents his disagreement with those who think that the eudaimon life is the life of honour or pleasure when he chastises the Athenians for caring more for riches and honour than the state of their souls. Good Sir you are an Athenian a citizen of the greatest city with the greatest reputation for both wisdom and power; are you not ashamed of your eagerness to possess as much wealth reputation and honours as possible while you do not care for nor give thought to wisdom or truth or the best possible state of your soul 29d.5 it does not seem like human nature for me to have neglected all my own affairs and to have tolerated this neglect for so many years while I was always concerned with you approaching each one of you like a father or an elder brother to persuade you to care for virtue. 31ab; italics added It emerges a bit further on that this concern for ones soul that ones soul might be in the best possible state amounts to acquiring moral virtue. So Socrates point that the Athenians should care for their souls means that they should care for their virtue rather than pursuing honour or riches. Virtues are states of the soul. When a soul has been properly cared for and perfected it possesses the virtues. Moreover according to Socrates this state of the soul moral virtue is the most important good. The health of the soul is incomparably more important for eudaimonia than (e.g.) wealth and political power. Someone with a virtuous soul is better off than someone who is wealthy and honoured but whose soul is corrupted by unjust actions. This view is confirmed in the Crito where Socrates gets Crito to agree that the perfection of the soul virtue is the most important good: And is life worth living for us with that part of us corrupted that unjust action harms and just action benefits Or do we think that part of us whatever it is that is concerned with justice and injustice is inferior to the body Not at all. It is much more valuable Much more (47e48a) Here Socrates argues that life is not worth living if the soul is ruined by wrongdoing.6 In summary Socrates seems to think that virtue is both necessary and sufficient for eudaimonia. A person who is not virtuous cannot be happy and a person with virtue cannot fail to be happy. We shall see later on that Stoic ethics takes its cue from this Socratic insight. Plato Platos great work of the middle period the Republic is devoted to answering a challenge made by a sophist Thrasymachus that conventional morality particularly the virtue of justice actually prevents the strong man from achieving eudaimonia. Thrasymachuss views are restatements of a position which Plato discusses earlier on his in writings in the Gorgias through the mouthpiece of Callicles. The basic argument presented by Thrasymachus and Callicles is that justice (being just) hinders or prevents the achievement of eudaimonia because conventional morality requires that we control ourselves and hence live with un-satiated desires. This idea is vividly illustrated in book 2 of the Republic when Glaucon taking up Thrasymachus challenge recounts a myth of the magical ring of Gyges. According to the myth Gyges becomes king of Lydia when he stumbles upon a magical ring which when he turns it a particular way makes him invisible so that he can satisfy any desire he wishes without fear of punishment. When he discovers the power of the ring he kills the king marries his wife and takes over the throne. The thrust of Glaucons challenge is that no one would be just if he could escape the retribution he would normally encounter for fulfilling his desires at whim. But if eudaimonia is to be achieved through the satisfaction of desire whereas being just or acting justly requires suppression of desire then it is not in the interests of the strong man to act according to the dictates of conventional morality. (This general line of argument reoccurs much later in the philosophy of Nietzsche.) Throughout the rest of the Republic Plato aims to refute this claim by showing that the virtue of justice is necessary for eudaimonia. The School of Athens by Raffaello Sanzio 1509 showing Plato (left) and Aristotle (right) The argument of the Republic is lengthy complex and profound and the present context does not allow that we give it proper consideration. In a thumbnail sketch Plato argues that virtues are states of the soul and that the just person is someone whose soul is ordered and harmonious with all its parts functioning properly to the persons benefit. In contrast Plato argues that the unjust mans soul without the virtues is chaotic and at war with itself so that even if he were able to satisfy most of his desires his lack of inner harmony and unity thwart any chance he has of achieving eudaimonia. Platos ethical theory is eudaimonist because it maintains that eudaimonia depends on virtue. (Virtue is necessary for eudaimonia.) On Platos version of the relationship virtue is depicted as the most crucial and the dominant constituent of eudaimonia. Aristotle Aristotles account is articulated in the Nicomachean Ethics and the Eudemian Ethics. In outline for Aristotle eudaimonia involves activity exhibiting virtue (arte sometimes translated as excellence) in accordance with reason. This conception of eudaimonia derives from Aristotles essentialist understanding of human nature the view that reason (logos sometimes translated as rationality) is unique to human beings and that the ideal function or work (ergon) of a human being is the fullest or most perfect exercise of reason. Basically well being (eudaimonia) is gained by proper development of one's highest and most human capabilities and human beings are "the rational animal". It follows that eudaimonia for a human being is the attainment of excellence (arte) in reason. According to Aristotle eudaimonia actually requires activity action so that it is not sufficient for a person to possess a squandered ability or disposition. Eudaimonia requires not only good character but rational activity. Aristotle clearly maintains that to live in accordance with reason means achieving excellence thereby. Moreover he claims this excellence cannot be isolated and so competencies are also required appropriate to related functions. For example if being a truly outstanding scientist requires impressive math skills so that one might say "doing mathematics well is necessary to be a first rate scientist". From this it follows that eudaimonia living well consists in activities exercising the rational part of the psyche in accordance with the virtues or excellences of reason 1097b221098a20. Which is to say to be fully engaged in the intellectually stimulating and fulling work at which one achieves well-earned success. The rest of the Nicomachean Ethics is devoted to filling out the claim that best life for a human being is the life of excellence in accordance with reason. Since reason for Aristotle is not only theoretical but practical also he spends quite a bit of time discussing excellences of character which enable a person to exercise his practical reason (i.e. reason relating to action) successfully. Aristotles ethical theory is eudaimonist because it maintains that eudaimonia depends on virtue. However it is Aristotles explicit view that virtue is necessary but not sufficient for eudaimonia. While emphasizing the importance of the rational aspect of the psyche he does not ignore the importance of other goods such as friends wealth and power in a life that is eudaimonic. He doubts the likelihood of being eudaimonic if one lacks certain external goods such as good birth good children and beauty. So a person who is hideously ugly or has lost children or good friends through death (1099b56) or who is isolated is unlikely to be eudaimon. In this way "dumb luck" (chance) can preempt one's attainment of eudaimonia. Epicurus Epicurus identified eudaimonia with the life of pleasure. Epicurus ethical theory is hedonistic. (His view proved very influential on the founders and best proponents of utilitarianism Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. See the article on utilitarianism.) Hedonism is the view that pleasure is the only intrinsic good and that pain is the only intrinsic bad. An object experience or state of affairs is intrinsically valuable if it is good simply because of what it is. Intrinsic value is to be contrasted with instrumental value. An object experience or state of affairs is instrumentally valuable if it serves as a means to what is intrinsically valuable. To see this consider the following example. Suppose you spend your days and nights in an office working at not entirely pleasant activities such as entering data into a computer and this all for money. Someone asks why do you want the money and you answer So I can buy an apartment overlooking the Mediterranean and a red Ferrari. This answer expresses the point that money is instrumentally valuable because it is a means to getting your apartment and red Ferrari. The value of making money is dependent on the value of commodities. It is instrumentally valuable: valuable only because of what one obtains by means of it. Epicurus identifies the eudaimon life with the life of pleasure. He understands eudaimonia as a more or less continuous experience of pleasure and also freedom from pain and distress. But it is important to notice that Epicurus does not advocate that one pursue any and every pleasure. Rather he recommends a policy whereby pleasures are maximized in the long run. In other words Epicuric claims that some pleasures are not worth having because they lead to greater pains and some pains are worthwhile when they lead to greater pleasures. The best strategy for attaining a maximal amount of pleasure overall is not to seek instant gratification but to work out a sensible long term policy. Ancient Greek ethics is eudaimonist because it links virtue and eudaimonia where eudaimonia refers to an individuals (objective) well being. Epicurus' doctrine can be considered eudaimonist since Epicurus argues that a life of pleasure will coincide with a life of virtue. He believes that we do and ought to seek virtue because virtue brings pleasure. Epicurus basic doctrine is that a life of virtue is the life which generates the most amount of pleasure and it is for this reason that we ought to be virtuous. This thesisthe eudaimon life is the pleasurable lifeis not a tautology as eudaimonia is the good life would be: rather it is the substantive and controversial claim that a life of pleasure and absence of pain is what eudaimonia consists in. One important difference between Epicurus eudaimonism and that of Plato and Aristotle is that for the latter virtue is a constituent of eudaimonia whereas Epicurus makes virtue a means to happiness. To this difference consider Aristotles theory. Aristotle maintains that eudaimonia is what everyone wants (and Epicurus would agree). He also thinks that eudaimonia is best achieved by a life of virtuous activity in accordance with reason. The virtuous person takes pleasure in doing the right thing as a result of a proper training of moral and intellectual character (See e.g. Nicomachean Ethics 1099a5). However Aristotle does not think that virtuous activity is pursued for the sake of pleasure. Pleasure is a byproduct of virtuous action: it does not enter at all into the reasons why virtuous action is virtuous. Aristotle does not think that we literally aim for eudaimonia. Rather eudaimonia is what we achieve (assuming that we arent particularly unfortunate in the possession of external goods) when we live according to the requirements of reason. Virtue is the largest constituent in a eudaimon life. By contrast Epicurus holds that virtue is the means to achieve happiness. His theory is eudaimonist in that he holds that virtue is indispensable to happiness; but virtue is not a constituent of a eudaimon life and being virtuous is not (external goods aside) identical with being eudaimon. Rather according to Epicurus virtue is only instrumentally related to happiness. So whereas Aristotle would not say that one ought to aim for virtue in order to attain pleasure Epicurus would endorse this claim. The Stoics Zeno thought happiness was a "good flow of life." Stoic philosophy begins with Zeno of Citium c.300 BCE and was developed by Cleanthes (331232 BCE) and Chrysippus (c.280c.206 BCE) into a formidable systematic unity.7 Zeno believed happiness was a "good flow of life"; Cleanthes suggested it was "living in agreement with nature" and Chrysippus believed it was "living in accordance with experience of what happens by nature."7 Stoic ethics is a particularly strong version of eudaimonism. According to the Stoics virtue is necessary and sufficient for eudaimonia. (This thesis is generally regarded as stemming from the Socrates of Platos earlier dialogues.) We saw earlier that the conventional Greek concept of arete is not quite the same as that denoted by virtue which has Christian connotations of charity patience and uprightness since arete includes many non-moral excellences such as physical strength and beauty. However the Stoic concept of arete is much nearer to the Christian conception of virtue which refers to the moral virtues. However unlike Christian understandings of virtue righteousness or piety the Stoic conception does not place as great an emphasis on mercy forgiveness self-abasement (i.e. the ritual process of declaring complete powerlessness and humility before God) charity and self-sacrificial love though these behaviors/mentalities are not necessarily spurned by the Stoics (they are spurned by other philosophers of Antiquity). Rather Stoicism emphasizes states such as justice honesty moderation simplicity self-discipline resolve fortitude and courage (states which Christianity also encourages). The Stoics make a radical claim that the eudaimon life is the morally virtuous life. Moral virtue is good and moral vice is bad and everything else such as health honour and riches are merely neutral.7 The Stoics therefore are committed to saying that external goods such as wealth and physical beauty are not really good at all. Moral virtue is both necessary and sufficient for eudaimonia. In this they are akin to Cynic philosophers such as Antisthenes and Diogenes in denying the importance to eudaimonia of external goods and circumstances such as were recognized by Aristotle who thought that severe misfortune (such as the death of ones family and friends) could rob even the most virtuous person of eudaimonia. This Stoic doctrine re-emerges later in the history of ethical philosophy in the writings of Immanuel Kant who argues that the possession of a "good will" is the only unconditional good. One difference is that whereas the Stoics regard external goods as neutral as neither good nor bad Kants position seems to be that external goods are good but only so far as they are a condition to achieving happiness. Eudaimonia and modern moral philosophy Interest in the concept of eudaimonia and ancient ethical theory more generally enjoyed a revival in the twentieth century. Elizabeth Anscombe in her article "Modern Moral Philosophy" (1958) argued that duty based conceptions of morality are conceptually incoherent for they are based on the idea of a "law without a lawgiver".8 She claims a system of morality conceived along the lines of the Ten Commandments depends on someone having made these rules.9 Anscombe recommends a return to the eudaimonistic ethical theories of the ancients particularly Aristotle which ground morality in the interests and well being of human moral agents and can do so without appealing to any such lawgiver. Julia Driver in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains: Anscombe's article Modern Moral Philosophy stimulated the development of virtue ethics as an alternative to Utilitarianism Kantian Ethics and Social Contract theories. Her primary charge in the article is that as secular approaches to moral theory they are without foundation. They use concepts such as morally ought morally obligated morally right and so forth that are legalistic and require a legislator as the source of moral authority. In the past God occupied that role but systems that dispense with God as part of the theory are lacking the proper foundation for meaningful employment of those concepts.10 Hugo Grotius similarly argued that natural law does not depend on the existence of God. Eudaimonia and modern Psychology Models of eudaimonia in psychology emerged out of early work on self-realization and the means of its accomplishment by researchers such as Erikson Allport and Maslow.11 Ryff identified the distinction between eudaimonia and hedonic wellbeing and a six-factor structure based on the Aristotelian emphasis on the qualities of belonging and benefiting others flourishing thriving and exercising excellence: Autonomy Personal growth Self-acceptance Purpose in life Environmental mastery Positive relations with others. Importantly she also produced scales for assessing Mental health.11 The factor structure has been debated 12 13 but has generated much research in wellbeing health and successful aging. See also Eupraxsophy Fellowship of Reason Humanism Nicomachean Ethics Summum bonum Virtue ethics References Daniel N. Robinson. (1999). Aristotle's Psychology. Published by Daniel N. Robinson. ISBN 096720660X ISBN 978-0967206608 Rosalind Hursthouse (July 18 2007). "Virtue Ethics". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/. Retrieved 2010-06-05. "But although modern virtue ethics does not have to take the form known as "neo-Aristotelian" almost any modern version still shows that its roots are in ancient Greek philosophy by the employment of three concepts derived from it. These are arte (excellence or virtue) phronesis (practical or moral wisdom) and eudaimonia (usually translated as happiness or flourishing.) As modern virtue ethics has grown and more people have become familiar with its literature the understanding of these terms has increased but it is still the case that readers familiar only with modern philosophy tend to misinterpret them."  a b Verena von Pfetten (09-4-08). "5 Things Happy People Do". Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/5-things-happy-people-don124002.html. Retrieved 2010-06-05. "But researchers now believe that eudaimonic well-being may be more important. Cobbled from the Greek eu ("good") and daimon ("spirit" or "deity") eudaimonia means striving toward excellence based on one's unique talents and potentialAristotle considered it to be the noblest goal in life. In his time the Greeks believed that each child was blessed at birth with a personal daimon embodying the highest possible expression of his or her nature. One way they envisioned the daimon was as a golden figurine that would be revealed by cracking away an outer layer of cheap pottery (the person's baser exterior). The effort to know and realize one's most golden self"personal growth" in today's vernacularis now the central concept of eudaimonia which has also come to include continually taking on new challenges and fulfilling one's sense of purpose in life."  Aristotle also David Ross Lesley Brown (1980). "The Nicomachean Ethics". Oxford University Press. http://books.google.com/booksidJHkp7t6ISvEC&pgPA5&lpgPA5&dqVerbally+there+is+a+very+general+agreement%3B+for+both+the+general+run+of+men+and+people+of+superior+refinement+say+that+it+is&sourcebl&otsQI2bp7lMzx&sigSVWPQlfkhX3jxPSss8KC-U-RIGw&hlen&eifG0KTOaEEIL58AakkJmMBw&saX&oibookresult&ctresult&resnum5&ved0CB8Q6AEwBA#vonepage&qvery%20general%20agreement&ffalse. Retrieved 2010-06-05. "Verbally there is very general agreement for both the general run of men and people of superior refinement..."  Uncertain (19 September 2008). "How "God" functioned in Socrates' life". DD:Religion. http://www.ohiodialogues.org/nugget/how-god-functioned-socrates-life. Retrieved 2010-06-05. "Men of Athens I am grateful and I am your friend but I will obey the god rather than you and as long as I draw breath and am able I shall not cease to practice philosophy to exhort you and in my usual way to point out to any of you whom I happen to meet: "Good Sir you are an Athenian a citizen of the greatest city with the greatest reputation for both wisdom and power; are you not ashamed of your eagerness to possess as much wealth reputation and honors as possible while you do not care for nor give thought to wisdom or truth or the best possible state of your soul""  Richard Parry (Aug 7 2009). "Ancient Ethical Theory". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-ancient/. Retrieved 2010-06-05. "Socrates says that a man worth anything at all does not reckon whether his course of action endangers his life or threatens death. He looks only at one thing whether what he does is just or not the work of a good or of a bad man (28bc)."  a b c Dirk Baltzly (Feb 7 2008). "Stoicism". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/. Retrieved 2010-06-05. "But what is happiness The Epicureans' answer was deceptively straightforward: the happy life is the one which is most pleasant. (But their account of what the highest pleasure consists in was not at all straightforward.) Zeno's answer was "a good flow of life" (Arius Didymus 63A) or "living in agreement" and Cleanthes clarified that with the formulation that the end was "living in agreement with nature" (Arius Didymus 63B). Chrysippus amplified this to (among other formulations) "living in accordance with experience of what happens by nature"; later Stoics inadvisably in response to Academic attacks substituted such formulations as "the rational selection of the primary things according to nature." The Stoics' specification of what happiness consists in cannot be adequately understood apart from their views about value and human psychology."  "The ethics of virtue: The Ethics of Virtue and the Ethics of Right Action". wutsamada.com. 2010-06-05. http://www.wutsamada.com/alma/ethics/rachelsd.htm. Retrieved 2010-06-05. "legalistic ethics rest on the incoherent notion of a "law" without a lawgiver: DCT unacceptable; and the alternative sources of moral "legislation" are inadequate substitutes"  G. E. M. Anscombe (January 1958). "Modern Moral Philosophy". Philosophy 33 No. 124. http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu/mleldrid/cmt/mmp.html. Retrieved 2010-06-05. "Originally published in Philosophy 33 No. 124 (January 1958). ... The first is that it is not profitable for us at present to do moral philosophy; that should be laid aside at any rate until we have an adequate philosophy of psychology in which we are conspicuously lacking. The second is that the concepts of obligation and dutymoral obligation and moral duty that is to sayand of what is morally right and wrong and of the moral sense of "ought" ought to be jettisoned if this is psychologically possible; because they are survivals or derivatives from survivals from an earlier conception of ethics which no longer generally survives and are only harmful without it. My third thesis is that the differences between the wellknown English writers on moral philosophy from Sidgwick to the present day are of little importance."  Julia Driver (Jul 21 2009). "Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret Anscombe: 5.1 Virtue Ethics". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anscombe/#VirEth. Retrieved 2010-06-05. "In the past God occupied that role but systems that dispense with God as part of the theory are lacking the proper foundation for meaningful employment of those concepts."  a b C. D. Ryff. (1989). Happiness is everything or is it Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57 1069-1081. K. W. Springer R. M. Hauser and J. Freese. (2006). Bad news indeed for Ryff's six-factor model of well-being. Social Science Research 35 1120-1131. C. D. Ryff and B. H. Singer. (2006). Best news yet on the six-factor model of well-being. Social Science Research 35 1103-1119. Further reading Ackrill J. L. (1981) Aristotle the Philosopher. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0192891189 Anscombe G. E. M. (1958) Modern Moral Philosophy. Philosophy 33; repr. in G.E.M. Anscombe (1981) vol. 3 2642. Aristotle. The Nichomachean Ethics translated by Martin Oswald (1962). New York: The Bobs-Merrill Company. Aristotle. The Complete Works of Aristotle vol. 1 and 2 rev. ed. Jonathan Barnes ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press 1984. Bollingen Foundation 1995. ASIN: B000J0HP5E Broadie Sarah W. (1991) Ethics with Aristotle. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ASIN: B000VM6T34 Cicero. De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum: "On Ends" H. Rackham trans. Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1914). Latin text with old-fashioned and not always philosophically precise English translation. Epicurus. "Letter to Menoeceus Principal Doctrines and Vatican Sayings" 2840 in B. Inwood and L. Gerson Hellenistic Philosophy: Introductory Readings Second Edition Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co. 1998. ISBN 0872203786 Irwin T. H. (1995) Platos Ethics Oxford: Oxford University Press. Long A. A. and D.N. Sedley The Hellenistic Philosophers vol 1 and 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1987) Norton David L. (1976) Personal Destinies Princeton University Press. Plato. Plato's Complete Works John M. Cooper ed. Translated by D. S. Hutchinson. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co. 1997. ISBN 0872203492 Urmson J. O. (1988) Aristotles Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell. Vlastos G. (1991) Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press. ISBN 0801497876 McMahon Darrin M. Happiness: A History Atlantic Monthly Press November 28 2005. ISBN 0871138867 McMahon Darrin M. The History of Happiness: 400 B.C. A.D. 1780 Daedalus journal Spring 2004. External links Ancient Ethical Theory Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Aristotle's Ethics Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy v d eEpicureanism Philosophers Greek era Epicurus  Polyaenus  Metrodorus  Batis  Leontion  Carneiscus  Idomeneus  Hermarchus  Colotes  Themista  Leonteus  Polystratus  Dionysius of Lamptrai  Basilides  Philonides  Diogenes of Tarsus  Alcaeus and Philiscus  Apollodorus  Demetrius Lacon  Zeno of Sidon Roman era Amafinius  Rabirius  Titus Albucius  Phaedrus  Philodemus  Lucretius  Patro  Catius  Siro  Diogenes of Oenoanda Philosophy Epicureanism  Tetrapharmakos Concepts Aponia  Ataraxia  Clinamen  Eudaimonia  Hedone  Metakosmia Works On the Nature of Things v d eStoicism Philosophers Early Stoa Zeno of Citium  Persaeus  Aristo  Sphaerus  Herillus  Cleanthes  Chrysippus  Zeno of Tarsus  Crates of Mallus  Diogenes of Babylon  Apollodorus  Antipater of Tarsus Middle Stoa Panaetius  Dardanus  Mnesarchus  Hecato  Posidonius  Diodotus  Geminus  Antipater of Tyre  Athenodoros Cananites Late Stoa Seneca  Cornutus  Musonius Rufus  Euphrates  Cleomedes  Epictetus  Hierocles  Sextus  Junius Rusticus  Marcus Aurelius Philosophy Stoicism  Stoic categories  Stoic passions  Stoic physics  Neostoicism Concepts Adiaphora  Apatheia  Ataraxia  Diairesis  Eudaimonia  Katalepsis  Logos  Kathekon  Physis  Pneuma  Prohairesis Works Dialogues (Seneca)  Discourses (Epictetus)  Enchiridion (Epictetus)  Epistles (Seneca)  Meditations (Marcus Aurelius)  The Republic (Zeno)