In the Nicomachean Ethics, Book I, Aristotle sets out to provide his definition of happiness, one central concept of his book, which states that happiness is acquired through activities motivated by virtues, in a completed life. This book is trying to find out what is the reason for the existence of human. People seek for pleasure and wealth. However, what hides behind all these scenes is the ultimate reason why we are alive. Happiness is our ultimate goal in accordance with our being. According to Aristotle, the true form of happiness does not come in the process, but rather more as a result, a judgment of an individuals life, of whether the person lived a good life and follows along his/her virtues. However, I think Aristotles argument on how to achieve happiness is too vague. There are many other elements that help people achieve happiness and, at the end, lived a good life. Aristotles concepts of happiness may be the best explanation of the social normality and belief of that particular era and culture, but in this glorified globalization era, there exists problems in his theory. It is true that till this day, the majority of the human population concerns themselves with the ultimate goal of happiness; however, there are no concrete boundaries or a definition that can covers every aspects of happiness. Being a good individual and live life according to virtues is no longer the only form that can bring forth happiness. Everyones ultimate goal is different. What if my ultimate happiness is to quietly sit on a bench with my loved one? Happiness is more than just a judgment when one dies; it is the process of living life, enjoying all that one enjoys. Moreover, if Aristotles claim was true, then do all murderers find no happiness whatsoever, and do all evildoers find themselves unassociated with happiness? We know that is not true. They do find happiness by doing these things that we dont considered as virtues of life. They feel happy even though we normally feel guilty of committing crime.