(Previous: Eudemian Ethics I.6.)
Having provided this prelude, let us begin - first things first, as we said - with what is not clearly expressed, seeking from there to clearly discover what fulfillment is. It's agreed to be the greatest and best of human goods (we say "human" because there could be fulfillment for some other, better being, such as a god). None of the other animals, which are inferior in nature to human beings, shares this title with us: for no horse or bird or fish finds fulfillment, nor any other being which does not, as the name suggests, by its nature share in the divine; rather it is by sharing in some other good thing that they live better or worse.
Later on we must consider the way in which this is the case. For now, let us state that of the good things some are open to human action and some are not. We phrase it this way because some things that exist are not subject to change, and thus neither are some good things; indeed they might be the things that are by nature the best. Furthermore, some things might be achievable only by beings greater than us. For "achievable" is said in two ways: both the things for the sake of which we take action, as well as the things which are for the sake of those, have a share in action (for example, we set down as achievable both health and wealth as well as the things we do for the sake of health and wealth - things that are healthy or that produce wealth). Thus it's clear that fulfillment must be set down as the best of the things open to human action.
(Cross-posted at Beautiful Wisdom.)
FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION