Rhetoric, Ethics, & Happiness

After outlining his three types of rhetorical proof (ethos, pathos, logos), Aristotle states:

Since proofs are produced by these means, it is clear that the grasp of them belongs to whoever has mastered the syllogism, can scientifically consider character and the virtues and, thirdly, knows what, and of what kind each of the emotions is an also from what and how they are engendered. Thus it turns out that rhetoric is, as it were, a kind of offshoot of dialectic and of the study of ethics and is quite properly categorized as political. (1 1.2)

I guess I’m wondering how we are to understand ethics in this formulation. It seems clear from his later discussion of happiness that Aristotle does not equate happiness with pleasure per se, but, rather, he suggests that being ethical leads to (intentionally?) happiness. If that is the case (and I hope I’m not reading Aristotle incorrectly), then happiness just is the result of being ethical—and may not always be equated with a pleasureful state. Of course, to know exactly what that means I would have to have a better idea of what he means by ethics, but I take it he does not only mean our obligations to others but also states of being and actions that create, in us, good character (which he outlines via the virtues). So, ethics, to a certain extent is about intrinsic value, which makes happiness....

Let happiness, then be virtuous welfare, or self-sufficiency in life or the pleasantness secure life or material and physical well-being accompanied by the capacity to safeguard or procure the same. (1 1.5)

These seems like a very general definition, but it makes happiness a complicated affair. For example, what is “virtuous welfare”?

These are initial thoughts, but I’m very interested in the connection between rhetoric and ethics. It seems to me that good rhetorical practices can contribute to building character. Or that is something I am very interested in thinking about.