Should we all be following Aristotle's ethics to have a good human life? Should we constantly exercise virtue? Is this good for individuals and society?
Alasdair MacIntyre's After Virtue is a must-read on this issue. He surveys what he calls the "Enlightenment Project"—the attempt to derive morality from Reason—and argues that it failed, miserably. He advocates a return to virtue ethics, which originally he thought could be done without teleology, but later came to see as essential. He argues for building upon Thomas Aquinas' update to Aristotle. For an analysis of the attempt to build a social life on secularism (which I would say is quite similar to said "Enlightenment Project"), I suggest UCSD law prof Steven D. Smith's The Disenchantment of Secular Discourse, which contains this snippet:
No one expects that anything called "reason" will dispel such pluralism by leading people to converge on a unified truth—certainly not about ultimate or cosmic matters such as "the nature of the universe" or "the end and the object of life." Indeed, unity on such matters could be achieved only by state coercion: Rawls calls this the "fact of oppression." So a central function of "public reason" today is precisely to keep such matters out of public deliberation (subject to various qualifications and exceptions that Rawls conceded as his thinking developed). And citizens practice Rawlsian public reason when they refrain from invoking or acting on their "comprehensive doctrines"—that is, their deepest convictions about what is really true—and consent to work only with a scaled-down set of beliefs or methods that claim the support of an ostensible "overlapping consensus".[Political Liberalism, 133-172, 223-227] (14–15)
An introduction to his book can be found at the NYT op ed Are There Secular Reasons?.