Yes and no. Aristotle made some very good points and some points were not even addressed. I agree that ultimately everyone seeks happiness. Happiness is everyone's goal: it's the reason why people wake up and perform repetitive movements, why they believe that the money they earn, the time they dedicate to volunteering, etc. they will bring them true happiness. Although Aristotle finds a common goal that all humanity wants to achieve, he inadequately attempts to explain how to achieve happiness. In my opinion, the Nicomachean Ethics does not directly teach a person how to be good, but is a rather confusing attempt to define goodness and virtue. Yes, you have to be a good person to be happy, but what is good? Aren't good and evil defined differently according to different cultures, religions, people and nations? The Nicomachean Ethics would have been clearer if Aristotle had laid a clear foundation on his standards of good and evil, instead of assuming that the reader already has that knowledge. Especially since thousands of years have passed from the time of Aristotle to today, the boundary between good and evil has changed. Furthermore, Aristotle's guideline of virtue is vague, because it requires the reader to actively and honestly analyze himself. How do you know if they are cowardly, reckless or courageous? People are not inclined to have extreme views of themselves?