Aquinas recognizes a number of wildly different kinds of individual happiness. What fundamentally unifies these various kinds of happiness so that they all count as varieties of happiness to begin with? This chapter gives a novel answer to this question and thereby identifies a new heart of happiness in Aquinas, which the author calls the Enjoying Good Activities Reading. On that reading, in every case, happiness is exclusively constituted by engaging in and enjoying a genuinely good activity. After giving a brief textual case in favor of reading Aquinas this way, the bulk of this chapter explains Aquinas’s understanding of enjoyment and his account of what it takes for an activity to be genuinely good. This makes clearer what this new reading amounts to and reveals something of its philosophical interest.

The introduction explains the nature of the study, its motivation, its basic structure, and its organization. It draws special attention to the way the book offers a novel interpretation of Aquinas’s account of individual happiness that is remarkably interesting philosophically. It also emphasizes the roles of individual happiness, common happiness, and Holistic Eudaimonism in Aquinas’s efforts to produce a unified ethical system in which law, virtue, and grace also have an important place.

This chapter examines the sort of happiness Aquinas thinks we can have on earth without any special divine help, namely, natural imperfect happiness. After establishing the varieties of natural imperfect happiness Aquinas accepts, it argues that, according to Aquinas, happiness is constituted exclusively by engaging in and enjoying those genuinely good activities that are made possible through the purely natural development of one’s powers. This is the Enjoying Good Activities Reading as applied to ordinary earthly happiness. The chapter then explains the various roles that everyday goods play in happiness so understood. Because of the role those goods play, it turns out that this sort of happiness is somewhat fragile. After giving an account of just how fragile it is, the chapter ends by considering Aquinas’s understanding of degrees of natural imperfect happiness.

Because the full reconstruction emerges piecemeal over the course of the study, this chapter starts by summarizing the most fundamental ways in which Aquinas connects the big-picture elements of his ethics through his understanding of happiness, both individual and common. The chapter then offers reasons for thinking that Aquinas’s ethics of happiness is still worth taking seriously today. In particular, it focuses on three illustrative aspects that make Aquinas’s ethical views distinctive and appealing. The first is Aquinas’s account of the nature of happiness and how that account fits into his broader understanding of well-being. The second is Aquinas’s account of the relationship between the right and the good. The third is Aquinas’s account of the most comprehensive role that virtue plays in ethics and human life.

Aquinas recognizes a number of wildly different kinds of individual happiness. What fundamentally unifies these various kinds of happiness so that they all count as varieties of happiness to begin with? This chapter starts to answer this question and thereby starts to home in on the true heart of happiness in Aquinas. Because perfectionism was predominant in Aquinas’s time, the chapter starts by laying out three importantly different varieties of perfectionism about happiness. It turns out that different commentators have treated each of those three varieties of perfectionism as the version that Aquinas endorses. So this chapter predominately explains and evaluates each of these three readings of Aquinas, while also drawing out lessons to be incorporated into any adequate novel account of the heart of happiness in Aquinas.

This chapter examines the sort of happiness Aquinas thinks we can have on earth with the help of God’s grace, namely, graced imperfect happiness. In keeping with the Enjoying Good Activities Reading, it argues that, according to Aquinas, happiness is constituted exclusively by engaging in and enjoying some suboptimal genuinely good activity, animated by God’s grace. After introducing Aquinas’s understanding of grace, the chapter works through Aquinas’s reflections on the Fruit of the Holy Spirit and the Beatitudes. From those reflections, it becomes clear both how Aquinas thinks about graced imperfect happiness generally and how he thinks about its basic varieties. The chapter closes by reflecting on graced imperfect happiness’s place between the perfect happiness of heaven and the natural imperfect happiness of those on earth living apart from God’s grace.

This chapter explains the many ways in which individual happiness and common happiness are related to Aquinas’s account of virtue. It begins by arguing that virtue is strictly necessary in order for an individual to be happy, but still virtue is not a constitutive part of that happiness. Rather, it is strictly necessary because virtue alone enables the individual to engage in and enjoy genuinely good activities. The chapter then argues that, still, according to Aquinas, virtue is more deeply related to common happiness than individual happiness inasmuch as a character trait is a virtue of character fundamentally because it enables a person to play their part in realizing the common happiness of their community, not their own individual happiness. The chapter thereby establishes the third element of Aquinas’s Holistic Eudaimonism. The remainder of the chapter shows how the master virtues of general justice and charity as well as a whole host of other particular virtues concern aiming at and securing common happiness for the community.

This chapter explains the many ways in which individual happiness and common happiness are related to Aquinas’s account of law, both generally and with respect to some particular laws. The chapter begins by arguing that, by its very nature, every genuine law orders the things under it to the common happiness of some community or other. It then argues that, according to Aquinas, moral laws order us to common happiness by outlining universal and absolute rules that must be followed in order to fully realize common happiness. Unlike many have thought, then, Aquinas holds that our moral obligations are fundamentally determined by facts about which norms must be followed in order to realize common happiness, not individual happiness. That is the second element of his Holistic Eudaimonism. On the other hand, when it comes to civil laws, the chapter argues that Aquinas advocates a kind of top-down, restricted rule-consequentialism with common happiness as its goal.

This chapter starts by arguing that, for Aquinas, common happiness is a fundamental and crucial notion, despite the fact that he very seldom discusses it and it has largely been ignored by commentators. It then sets out Aquinas’s understanding of the nature of common happiness with special attention to two models of common happiness, namely, the community of heaven and true friendship. The chapter then argues for the perhaps unprecedented claim that Aquinas is committed to the idea that common happiness is the true ultimate end of each human being. It thereby establishes the first element of Aquinas’s Holistic Eudaimonism.

This chapter argues for a fairly radical rethinking of Aquinas’s account of perfect happiness. In particular, it argues that, according to Aquinas, perfect happiness just is the fruitio of God, understood as a complex activity involving both the vision of God and maximal enjoyment of God. This fits very well with the Enjoying Good Activities Reading laid out in Chapter 2, since perfect happiness so understood clearly involves engaging in and enjoying a genuinely good activity. From there, the chapter explains what makes that perfect happiness so special, in part by comparing that happiness to God’s own happiness. After explaining the relationship between the fruitio of God and other heavenly goods, the chapter closes by showing how Aquinas makes sense of the idea that perfect happiness comes in degrees and how it is that resurrected bodies and other people are supposed to make us happier in heaven.

Kant’s critique of perfectionism in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals launches lively debate on the limits of coercion and the requisites for free action, foundational for post-Kantian perfectionism. The Critique of Practical Reason reformulates the Leibnizian concept of spontaneity as a ‘true apology for Leibniz’, salvaging what is most vital in his thought. Spontaneous freedom does not externalise a unique content, as in Leibniz, but now conceived as negative liberty, signifies the will’s ability to abstract from external causes or to admit them selectively according to rational criteria. Spontaneity is the condition for an order of right, as the sphere of compatible external actions among juridical subjects. Here Kant effects a second modification of Leibniz, in the idea of mutual causality or reciprocity. The Metaphysics of Morals of 1797 elaborates the distinction between pure and empirical practical reason, freedom and happiness, and delineates the sphere of rightful interaction. Neither happiness nor virtue are subject to constraint, but in the sphere of right coercion or mutual limitation is the condition that assures and generalises freedom.

Adam Smith ridicules the Stoics for neglecting the objects of virtuous choice. They think of life, he says, as a kind of game, the point of which is not winning but playing well, playing fairly and playing skillfully. The Stoics thus misrepresent what is at stake in our lives. This chapter discusses the difference between Kantian and Stoic ethics by focusing on questions raised by Smith’s analogy: Should the Stoics be troubled by his critique? Can the same criticism be leveled against Kantian ethics? How does the Kantian category of conditional goodness differ from the Stoic category of moral indifferents? And is Kant’s anti-eudaimonism – his insistence that virtue does not coincide with happiness – as significant a departure from Stoicism as he would have us believe?

Popular minimalist and moderate liberal interpreters suggest that, both in the 1780s and in the more fully developed political works of the 1790s, Kant adopts a narrow and skeptical approach to state-sponsored efforts addressing social welfare. Interpreted with due attention to context, however, relevant passages from Kant’s 1784 lectures in political philosophy—the Naturrecht Feyerabend—suggest no necessarily narrow commitments in the realm of social supports. Read in conjunction with his Feyerabend discussion of innate right, meanwhile, the contemporaneous essay on enlightenment provides us reasons (including an active conception of civic agency and a positive understanding of the state’s role) to conclude that the account of justice that Kant’s early works advance indeed could support a rich menu of such programs. Publications from the 1790s might, of course, take a contrary stance. It falls to those who favor a more conservative reading, however, to prove that Kant altered an earlier, agency-oriented position friendly to state-sponsored supports.

This chapter considers the presentation of virtue and happiness in the Meditations and asks how far this matches the distinctive features of Stoic thinking on these topics. The main topics considered are (1) the virtue–indifferents distinction, (2) the presentation of the virtues as forming groups or as unified in some way, (3) the virtue-happiness relationship and the idea of happiness as ‘the life according to nature’, meaning according to human or universal nature (or both). Overall, it is suggested that, although Marcus’s focus in the work is on the contribution of these ideas to his overall project of ethical self-improvement, his presentation largely reflects the ideas and connections between them that we find in the standard ancient accounts of Stoic ethics.