Sloth is the only vice which is its own reward. For an Aristotelian, this claim presents an interesting dilemma. In the Nichomachean Ethics, we learn that

the highest good is something final. Thus, if there is only one final end, this will be the good we are seeking; if there are several, it will be the most final and perfect of them. We call that which is pursued as an end in itself more final than an end which is pursued for the sake of something else; and what is never chosen as a means to something else we call more final than that which is chosen both as an end in itself and as a means to something else. What is always chosen as an end in itself and never as a means to something else is called final in an unqualified sense. This description seems to apply to happiness above all else: for we always choose happiness as an end in itself and never for the sake of something else.

It's tempting to conclude that since happiness is an end in itself, and so is sloth, therefore the two are for our current purpose identical. Aristotle, despite being a lazy fellow himself, would disagree. Happiness can only be obtained through the proper activity of the soul -- and even this activity is a necessary rather than a sufficient cause. But I remain unconvinced. And so do others.

It's a subtler question than it seems at first. It's a flip thing to say, that sloth is its own reward. But what grounds do we have for choosing the active happiness over this empty, indolent one? Why, in short, choose something over nothing? Rather than insisting that our nature as a rational being necessitates rational action, to which it can be retorted that our nature necessitates rational inaction, we must assume that we have a duty to objects beyond ourself. Such a claim requires an elaborate moral framework, and finally, I think, a belief in God. The Stoics understood this most clearly.

Friend, lay hold with a desperate grasp, ere it is too late, on Freedom, on Tranquility, on Greatness of soul! Lift up thy head, as one escaped from slavery; dare to look up to God, and say:-- "Deal with me henceforth as Thou wilt; Thou and I are of one mind. I am Thine: I refuse nothing that seemeth good to Thee; lead on whither Thou wilt; clothe me in what garb Thou pleasest; wilt Thou have me a ruler or a subject -- at home or in exile -- poor or rich? All these things will I justify unto men for Thee. I will show the true nature of each...."

Who would Hercules have been had he loitered at home? no Hercules, but Eurystheus. And in his wanderings through the world how many dear friends and comrades did he find? but nothing dearer to him than God.

The Stoics overstate their case when they claim that accepting whatsoever comes is the path to happiness. The natural and appropriate reaction to certain events is grief. To try to deflect this grief through the cheap rationalization that because God ordained it it must be good is rank foolishness. But only the Stoic insight into the importance of duty can show us why sloth is not virtue.