Aristotelian Virtue Ethics: After Virtue 2

We start with the fundamentals. In order to understand where Alisdair MacIntyre is coming from in After Virtue, we have to understand a few ideas inherited from the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle concerning teleology, man as political, and the meaning of virtue from Aristotle's perspective. I take a first pass at contrasting Aristotelian thinking with the modern thought that MacIntyre thinks exploded the means of moral agreement within communities.

[thegoldenvoid]

Thank you for your work. Very helpful, useful contextualisation and very timely to my current researches.

[binyan]

Thank you for doing this series! I read After Virtue over the summer, and although it was gripping, I know I need to reread it to get all the key points, so I'm looking forward to rereading it along with your videos. Also, if you end up enjoying After Virtue, I hope you followup with MacIntyre's expansion of After Virtue's ideas in Whose Justice, Which Rationality?

[danjones]

Really an excellent explanation. Thank you.

[insookang]

🙏, I believes that our goal are Eudaimonia. Thank you again

[alexandernikolaenko]

I have several questions regarding virtue ethics:
1) Let us imagine a person who says something like "money, not virtue makes me happy", and this conclusion is based on one's experience or even rational thought. From Aristotle's point of view, this conclusion is certainly wrong. Does it mean that happiness is objective and it is not up to a person to decide? Then it is completely unclear how to become happy because you can not trust your own feelings anymore.
2) Aristotle claims that all people strive to be happy because it is a natural end of human beings. But If a person says "I don't want to be happy". Is this person mistaken again?

From a religious point of view, these two questions can be easily answered. We can say that God gave humans a certain purpose(which is not up to a human to decide). Fulfilling this purpose(being virtuous) is the only way to become happy. It is more obvious now that first and second individuals are mistaken.

I am curious how would Aristotle answer these questions, without using any religious arguments?