Robert explores divergent aspects of Aristotle theory of humans being social animals and how certain interpretation is taken to a different extend. The article centers about how Aristotle categorized humans as social animals and how his argument about the life of virtue has been misconstrued with the happy life. It was no confidential matter that Aristotle viewed men as political or social animals. The article defines what Aristotle meant when he described humans as “political by nature and how the assumption rules out for him over the distinction between one’s personal happiness or goodness and someone’s egoism and altruism.” Roberts states that according to Aristotle life of pleasure is only suitable for animals. Also, Robert mentions how the best life a human being can achieve is to be”uniquely human life.” Living the good life according to Aristotle theory is followed be subsequently possessing certain virtues of character which led you to eudaimonia. Based on the Robert, the individual who believes that joy is the fulfillment of whatever wants one may happen to have, for example, cannot be influenced that the Aristotelian ideals add with that in mind; they do not. The whole political animal theory examined by Robert demonstrates that Aristotle’s virtues are useful in order to live the good life. Man is a rational animal and is a unified creature that does not act in tandem. The Robert specifically focuses on how Aristotle mentions that eudaimonia “has self-sufficiency” which is vital in a truly final end. Our only necessity as social animals is reaching eudaimonia and it is sufficient without anyone else to make life choice-worthy and ailing in nothing. Besides that, Roberts indicates that the happiness an individual feeling is not only felt by them but also for the children, spouse, and parents and as well as “fellow citizens and friends.” “The explanation for this is that man is by nature political.” Moreover, Robert states that Aristotle is not considering people as animals whose satisfaction can be confined to themselves, the benefit of different others is a piece of any person’s great. One of the weaknesses of the paper is that the writer includes facts of how Aristotle’s writing is misinterpreted in when it comes to happiness.Relatively making it more challenging to comprehend the topic of why and how humans are political animals. Furthermore, the Robert disagrees with Aristotle since he states that you cannot answer how to live a good life just by looking at how others live their lives. However, he makes a strenuous and logical argument to support his ideas which are his personal opinions.