Friday Question: Stoics versus Aristotle on Eudaimonia

This week's Friday Question comes from a QUB student, Christopher Moore:

Aristotle’s ethical theory is a virtue theory in part because it maintains that eudaimonia ('happiness' or 'flourishing') depends on virtue. However, it is Aristotle’s explicit view that virtue is necessary but not sufficient for eudaimonia. While emphasizing the importance of the rational aspect of the psyche for eudaimonia, he does not ignore the importance of other ‘goods’ such as friends, wealth, and power that also might contribute to the good life. He doubts that eudaimonia will be secured if one lacks certain external goods such as good birth, good children, and beauty. So, a person who is hideously ugly or has lost children or good friends through death, or who is isolated, is unlikely to be in a state of eudaimonia. In this way, "dumb luck" (chance) can preempt one's attainment of eudaimonia.

The Stoics, in contrast, make a radical claim that eudaimonia is the morally virtuous life. Moral virtue is good, and moral vice is bad, and everything else, such as health, honour and riches, are merely ‘neutral’. The Stoics therefore are committed to saying that external goods such as wealth and physical beauty are not really good at all.

Question: What role does external goods play in the attainment of eudaimonia? Can one still obtain the greatest happiness and fulfilment in life and still be unfortunate enough to lack the features that Aristotle emphasises?