Abstract

In addition to the asking about the nature of virtue and how to achieve it, ancient philosophers mainly asked whether virtues are useful for men, that is, do they lead to man’s happiness? In fact, their question was about the relationship between happiness and virtue, in that they asked whether virtues are necessary and inevitable for happiness or not? Aristotle believes that virtues are necessary condition to achieve happiness, though, contrary to Plato, he does not regard them as required condition. He defines happiness as the soul’s activity conforming to virtue. In fact, Aristotelian virtues which are rooted in mere intellect are the means of achieving a happy life in this world. Ghazali distances from Aristotle when discussing the nature of virtue, happiness and their relationship, though he was influenced by Aristotle. In this regard, Ghazali’s explanation, contrary to Aristotle’s, is not based on mere intellect; rather, it is based on revelation and Sacred Law. Therefore, Ghazali believes that moral virtues are not restricted to philosophical virtues and does not regard happiness as merely enjoying a happy life in this world. On this basis, the present paper reviews similarities and differences between Aristotle’s and Ghazali’s explanation about the nature of virtue and happiness and their relationship.