system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Aristotle: Is it possible for the good of an individual to ever come into conflict with the good of society?

Aristotle's whole reason for acting virtuously seems to be that it is good for us, i.e., he encourages us to act well for our own sake. Yet, he also says in Book 1 of Nicomachean Ethics that the social good is “finer and more godlike” than the individual good and should be aimed at. How is this not contradictory? 

I understand acting pro-socially when it doesn't cost me anything. But what reason do I have (as per Aristotle) for acting in the interest of the social good if it disadvantages me somehow?

Thanks!
gpt
The problem is that you probably think something different when you hear "acting for your own good" than what Aristotle meant. There are two points we must understand to see this clearly.

The first is that Aristotle's metaphysics are teleological. Everything has a final end, or goal, and, ethically, things are better or worse in relation to their fitness for achieving said goal. For example, a plant's final end is to reproduce. A good plant produces healthy seeds, therefore, and a bad plant does not. Some things also might have multiple ends.

The second is that Aristotle believes man is both rational and political by nature. The virtuous man is one who acts in accord with human nature, as this leads him to his final end. And since politics (by which Aristotle means all social interaction, not just statecraft, though that is included explicitly) is chiefly concerned with the common good, achieving the common good is the goal of statecraft, and necessary for (almost all) men to achieve their final ends. Therefore, it is virtuous for man to exercise his reason in service of the common good always, since such exercise always helps him achieve his final end, provided he exercise correctly.