Öz
This article basically dwells on the relationship between virtue ethics and eudaimonia, focusing on what true happiness is and its relation to virtue. In virtue ethics, it is accepted that human beings need certain virtues in order to live happily. However, the issue of how to establish the relationship between happiness and virtue causes some disagreements. What does good and happy life mean for human beings? The core of the disagreement here is knotted on how this true happiness should be understood. For some, happiness produced by being virtuous consists of some pleasure, while for others it is defined as a state of inner peace. But the proponents of virtue ethics basically argue that there is a strong link between virtue and happiness.
When such a strong link was established between virtue and happiness, objections from two different perspectives were raised. The first is the claim that virtue does not actually bring happiness to people. When the reason of being virtuous is associated with the desire to be happy, this situation creates a serious contradiction with the fact that the lives of great virtuous people (i.e., moral saints) do not bring them happiness. Because in general, the expectation that the lives of great people (moral saints) who have become known for their virtuousness live will bring happiness to people contains more optimism than necessary. However, the real dilemma in this matter is to ignore the fact that the meaning attributed to happiness may differ in the minds of these virtuous people. Of course, it is not possible to argue that people who exhibited the best examples of virtue live in an earthly happiness without exception. However, they are expected to be attractive to other people with such exemplary personalities. It is possible to explain this situation with a divine connection, but it is obvious that the happiness expected to produce by virtue will differ from its general definition, even if there is no apparent divine side. That is, virtue promises an inner peace beyond a state of happiness limited to this world. This situation can seemingly create an inner and spiritual feeling of peace, even if some emotional states that seem unhappy for some people appear. Therefore, even if the life of these great people (that is, moral saints) who are the inspiration for humanity seems an earthly unhappiness in appearance, this does not show that they are not happy; rather, it shows that they attribute a different meaning to happiness.
The second objection to the happiness-centered virtue ethics is related to egoism. This objection relates one's motivation to be a virtuous person with a desire that ultimately prioritizes their own happiness. The claim that happiness, which is expected to be achieved by being virtuous, actually involves a selfishness or egoism seems to be considered from a very limited perspective. The relationship between the ideal of being virtuous and one's own happiness cannot be entirely ignored. However, this should not prevent us from realizing the consequences of a person's virtue for the well-being of other people. According to virtue ethics, people are expected to have certain virtues if they want to enhance or improve their character. It can even be argued that being virtuous actually helps people to limit their own needs and desires, contrary to the accusation of egoism. Moreover, it cannot be denied that virtue makes it easier for a person to develop an altruistic perspective that prioritizes others and regards them as valued. That is to say, the multi-dimensional structure of virtue must be evaluated correctly.
True virtue does not arise in anticipation of a possible happiness that action will produce. Therefore, virtue does not encourage one to focus on their own happiness, but rather to aim for what is good for them. This study basically aims to discuss whether the criticisms coming from different perspectives on the relationship between virtue and happiness are satisfactory.