1
Andrew Crane
Ethics 207
10/17/2015
Word Count: 1480
Aristotle’s theory of goodness is better than Plato’s theory of goodness. In this paper I will
discuss the stance that Plato takes regarding goodness, as well as Aristotle’s counter theory. I will begin
by introducing Plato’s theory of forms, as well as Aristotle’s theory of virtue and happiness in order to
develop a background for their theories regarding goodness. In the third paragraph I will begin by
presenting Plato’s theory of the good; which revolves around the idea that there is a universal form of
good which all other forms are dependent upon. I will explain Plato’s form of the good, and the
beneficial aspects of theory. Once I have accomplished this I will discuss Aristotle’s counter argument to
Plato’s form of the good. Aristotle’s argument states that good is not necessarily universal like Plato
would persuade an audience to believe in his Theory of Forms rather that the term good is unique to
each individual, and revolves around the goal of happiness. I will incorporate Aristotle’s approach that
goodness is dependent on the essence of the individual using Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Upon completion
of arguing both sides Aristotle’s Metaphysics and Plato’s Theory of Forms I will draw the conclusion that
Plato’s theory of goodness is less persuadable than Aristotle’s theory of goodness.
In order to understand Plato’s theory of goodness you have to understand his theory of forms,
because all of Plato’s philosophy revolves around this idea. This theory is based on the principle that
there are two worlds the physical world, that which we can perceive with our five senses, and the
universal world, which is a world where the perfect forms exist. Plato would state that for everything we
can observe there is a form in another dimension that exists as an ultimate reference point for the
observable physical object that exists. In Book VII of Plato’s Republic he explains his theory of forms
through the allegory of the cave. In this allegory he describes a cave in which several men live chained
up to a wall. These men can only see shadow images that seem to float across the wall. One of the men
is released from the cave, and travels out into a world in which he can see light, and the actual objects
that project the shadows. The actual objects that exist represent the forms, because they are the truest
2
Andrew Crane
Ethics 207
10/17/2015
Word Count: 1480
state of the object, and the shadows seen by most men represent the visual world in which we can
perceive (Plato, Book VII). Plato states that the world in which we perceive is merely only a shadow of
the perfect forms existing in a separate world. With an understanding of Plato’s forms we can take into
consideration his theory of goodness. When discussing Aristotle’s theory of goodness you need to have
a general idea of his 4 causes which he presents in Metaphysics. The four causes that Aristotle discusses
are material cause, which is what makes up the substance; formal cause, the shape or likeness; efficient
cause, who causes it; and final cause, the purpose or goal. Everything has a different set of causes that
affect them. Aristotle proposes that Eudaimonia, flourishing or happiness, is the ultimate goal. The
lower goals are sought because they promote Eudaimonia, the ultimate goal (Kraut). The formal cause,
structure, effects the final cause, purpose, which causes different objects to have different ways to
achieve Eudaimonia. Aristotle believes that the good exists within Eudaimonia. In order to understand
his theory of goodness you have to understand that Eudaimonia, flourishing, is different dependent
upon the four causes.
Plato describes goodness as a form that exists in the realm of perfection. The form of the good is
the highest form and exists as the ultimate principle. It stands as a source of all other forms. According
to this passage taken from Plato’s The Republic Book VI, “not only do the objects of knowledge owe their
being known to the Good, but their being is also due to it, although the Good is not being, but superior
to it in rank and power.”(Plato) The way to understand this is through Plato’s analogy of the sun and
goodness. He uses the sun and its maintenance of all that is living to resemble goodness and how it is
the basic principle which determines the nature of every object (Frede). All forms some way or another
are effected by the form of the good. It encompasses all other forms. This explains how all perceivable
objects can be perceived as good. Plato’s form of the good gives an ultimate perception of what good
should represent. The form of the good according to Plato exists as a standard in which helps classify
3
Andrew Crane
Ethics 207
10/17/2015
Word Count: 1480
what good can be. For example you are able to recognize something as good, because of the ultimate
form of good which exists. All things exist under the form of the good. According to Plato the form of the
good is the same for all objects. The form of the good does not change from one subject to the next.
Since Plato does not account for change or differences with his form of the good it is not as beneficial as
Aristotle’s theory of goodness.
Aristotle’s theory of good is better than that of Plato, because it values the idea that there is not
one single form of the good. Aristotle believes that goodness varies depending on the object in which it
represent. Aristotle would say that goodness is dependent on the actual essence of the individual. For
example what is good for piece of metal is different than what is good for a lion. This all deals with
Aristotle’s four causes efficient, formal, and final cause. He states, “For the final cause is (a) some being
for whose good an action is done, and (b) something at which the action aims.”(Aristotle) The good of a
piece of metal is different than the good of the lion because the aims of the individuals are different.
Therefore, the Eudaimonia for the lion is different than the Eudaimonia for the piece of metal. Meaning
that when considering a piece of metal as being good you take into consideration different aspects than
you do when considering whether a certain lion is good or not. Everything in life has different
characteristics that make it that sort of object. With this reasoning it is easier to agree with Aristotle’s
stance that for each object there is a certain quality of good in which they can accomplish. This goes
against Plato’s idea of an ultimate form of good which everything can only try to emulate. Aristotle
states that the good is the end in which everything is directed. This is a counter to Plato’s philosophy
that there is a good itself. Plato would say that the only way to be good is to understand the true form
of goodness itself. Aristotle argues this by implying for example there is no reason for a farmer to
understand good itself. Instead to be a good farmer he must focus on the task at hand which is farming.
Therefore there are different ways in which one can qualify as being good. Aristotle’s theory of
4
Andrew Crane
Ethics 207
10/17/2015
Word Count: 1480
goodness takes into consideration that there are two ways to understand good which can be in “quality,
as good, as well as a substance, the good” (Mattey). "We must consider also in which of two ways the
nature of the universe contains the good, and the highest good, whether as something separate and by
itself, or as the order of the parts.” (Aristotle). He goes on to discuss how it has to be the order of the
parts. He is stating that there are subordinate goods which lead to the highest good. Plato’s theory does
not account for this, because it only creates a form of the good lacking the subordinate goods that
Aristotle thinks are essential.
Considering Aristotle’s theory of goodness as being better than Plato’s theory of goodness is the
only rational conclusion that can be drawn when further detail regarding these two theories is taken
into consideration. Aristotle theory has a stronger basis, and takes into considerations aspects that
Plato’s theory cannot attest to. Plato’s theory can be considered plausible; however, Aristotle’s theory
expands from Plato’s theory, and draws a more effective conclusion than that of Plato.
5
Andrew Crane
Ethics 207
10/17/2015
Word Count: 1480
Works Cited
Aristotle. “Metaphysics.” Trans. W.D. Ross. Internet Classics Archive. 1994. Web. 07 Oct. 2015.
Frede, Dorothea. "Plato's Ethics: An Overview." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (Fall 2013
Edition) Ed. Edward N. Zalta. <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/plato-ethics/>.
Kraut, Richard. "Aristotle's Ethics." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. Edward N. Zalta,
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/aristotle-ethics/>.
Mattey, G. J. "Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics”." (2010): n. pag. <i>Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics</i>.
UC Davis University, 2015. Web. 7 Oct. 2015.
Plato. "The Internet Classics Archive | The Republic by Plato." The Republic. Trans. Benjamin Jowett.
Internet Classics Archive. 1994. Web. 07 Oct. 2015.