pavlovsgods

Aristotle's conception of the goodness of a thing (which is not convincingly conveyed by the author) is essentially normatively neutral; a good knife qua knife for Aristotle is one that cuts well as a good nuclear weapon is one which is destructive. Using a nuclear weapon might not be good but just as a gun might be well-designed without being well-used I don't think it is too normatively concerning to be able to identify something as being a good example of its kind (a well-designed nuclear weapon), though I could be wrong!

May we stand judged by our own actions and words and not by SEO posts portraying them :p Aristotle is well worth reading for someone interested in philosophy, but he himself did not claim to have discovered how to be happy (he thought of himself as explicating and systematizing what everyone thinks about happiness), his notion of telos (poorly translated as 'function') is not subject to your rightly raised objection, and, though he did believe that humans are distinguished from non-human animals by possession of a rational faculty, he thought we shared with non-human animals the capacity to feel.