ABSTRACT
During the last few decades, the issue of whether Aristotle subscribes to an exclusive or inclusive conception of eudaimonia—”happiness” or “human flourishing”—has been the subject of ongoing scholarly debate. According to exclusivist interpreters, Aristotelian eudaimonia consists of just one intrinsic good, usually identified with the exercise of the contemplative intellect in accord with its proper virtue of sophia (theoretical wisdom). On the inclusivist reading, by contrast, eudaimonia consists of more than one such intrinsic good. Indeed, according to inclusivists, eudaimonia is a complete and self-sufficient end because it is a composite end lacking in none of the intrinsic goods that make for a good life. Thus, inclusivists maintain that virtuous actions and other intrinsic goods are valuable for the sake of eudaimonia by somehow composing eudaimonia.
