For most people today, being a good person simply means following a commonly agreed upon set of moral guidelines. However, such guidelines have become increasingly confusing and convoluted from culture to culture and from generation to generation. The question remains whether the definition of morality can truly be universal and whether this definition can be the only prerequisite for goodness. As in modern times, goodness, or the act of being a good person, was a major philosophical issue in ancient Greece. Some of the world's most famous philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, discussed this concept of goodness at length and reflected on the correct way to be a good person, what it meant, and why it was important to live that way. While both authors wrote books focused on other concepts (Plato's Republic focuses on justice and Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics is primarily concerned with happiness), “the good” underlies the motivations for pursuing the questions of their themes main ones, such as being reason seeking justice in the Republic, is the center of their metaphors, such as Plato's allegory of the cave, and is the solution to many of the questions they ask, as in Aristotle's studies of virtue and happiness. Despite being very different books with very different perspectives, both Plato and Aristotle, in the Republic and the Nicomachean Ethics respectively, approach goodness as something positive to aspire to and attribute it to leading to a better and more fulfilling life. Plato sees good as a universal concept that acts as a being with the same powers as God and causes knowledge, and believes that it is possible to find it through special education, while Aristotle, in his work, writes a more convincing argument connecting the goodness to being happy and virtuous and, more realistically, cites the imitation of virtue as the way to achieve it. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay In the Republic, Plato describes the good in a way that resembles God, due to his portrayal of the good as a being who is the creator and ultimate giver of knowledge to human beings. He begins his discussion of goodness because it is integral to his inquiry into justice and the perfect city, since the philosopher kings whom Plato considers the best choices to rule the Republic are distinguished by the fact that they have achieved goodness (Plato VII. 214). Plato defines goodness as “the very cause of knowledge and truth” and “the main objective in the pursuit of knowledge” (Plato VI.198). He further states that the good "imbues the objects of knowledge with truth and gives the knower the power to know" (Plato VI.198). In this way the good is depicted as an omnipotent God, because He is the creator of knowledge itself and chooses who is allowed to discover the truth and when. Without the good it is not possible to find the truth on our own, but instead we must depend on and pursue the good exclusively. The only reason for receiving an education and gaining knowledge is not the truth itself, but that God, the Good, gives him the ability to discern the truth. Plato helps the reader understand this concept of goodness by using a metaphor of the sun: he relates the sun's ability to enable vision to the good's ability to allow reason (VI.197). Just as sight would be rendered useless without sunlight, so reason would be ineffective without good, or God, enabling people to use reason to effectively solve problems. In this way, the sun is thereversion of the good of the material world, and the good plays the role of the sun in the intelligible world. This explains why God is sometimes inaccurately depicted as the sun, because their similarities leave room for comparison when people unintentionally blur the line between the physical and the intellectual. According to Plato, goodness is also “the source of happiness” (II.75). A bad man cannot be happy, but must instead obtain goodness first, and then happiness will follow. This could also be translated, if good is God, to mean that finding it is the source of happiness and that people who do not know God may think they are happy, but in reality do not know what true happiness means. Plato's views on the advantages and disadvantages of pursuing goodness are outlined in his metaphor of the cave. In this metaphor, the sun once again represents good, or God, and the people live in a dark cave without any knowledge of the sun, trapped by their ignorance of God. When one of the people leaves the cave and experiences the sun for first time, he has a new vision of reality and tries to return to the cave to let each of the other people out (Plato VII.209). In this situation and in life it helps to find goodness and see the truth, which is why the escapees were eager to show everyone else in the cave what they were missing. However, from the prisoners' point of view, ignorance is a blessing and they have no reason to leave the darkness they are accustomed to. They may also think that it would be harmful to leave the familiar in pursuit of the good. So, in reality, there are no disadvantages to achieving good, as it will lead to all the best things in life, such as happiness and wisdom, but instead, disadvantages only exist in certain perspectives. It could be like atheists who think they know the truth and see no benefit in seeking God, because from their point of view they have no reason to do so. However, pursuing goodness is not only what is best for oneself, but also positively affects others. If the rulers are good, then they have wisdom and know the truth, and are able to properly govern a city and its people, so that everything prospers under the good ruler. Good people inspire others to be good, as the people who escaped the cave did, so that goodness can spread. This can be seen in Christians who have a strong intention to spread the knowledge of God because they want others to benefit from the happiness and wisdom that they have benefited from in finding Him. Plato's definition of good cannot be found in any real person, as everyone needs laws to guide their actions and behaviors, and even Jesus needed commandments. On the other hand, Plato identifies evil with injustice, that is, all vices combined. An example of an evil person in Plato's mind would be a fictional villain, such as Voldemort, who kills without hesitation or reason and acts out of extremes. However, just as with goodness, it is difficult to identify a truly evil person, since many evil people believe they are doing what is right. To become what Plato calls a good person, or to “escape the cave,” education is the most important step to take. Education is what brings people out of the metaphorical cave and into the light, which is truth and God (Plato VII.214). However, not all education puts you on the right path towards good. After several long discussions in which Socrates and his fellow interlocutors found answers and subsequently disqualified them, they finally came to the conclusion that the best types of education are the study of calculus and geometry,the study of perfect harmonies and, above all, the study of dialectics. This education works best when given to young people and “does not have to be compulsory” (Plato VII.230). If these topics, with the exception of dialectics, are studied as a child, one becomes a good adult who does not need laws or rules because he knows how to govern himself well. If one is exceptionally good at dialectics, he is particularly good and is a candidate to be one of Plato's philosopher kings. Ultimately, Plato concludes that someone who is good, or knows God, and is educated in philosophy will lead the best life with the greatest happiness and even be successful in the afterlife. In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle identifies goodness with happiness. .Because his purpose in the book is to find a way to achieve happiness, goodness is woven into many of the discussions. From the beginning of the novel he maintains that “the good has rightly been defined as 'that towards which all things tend'” (Aristotle II). In other words, everything everyone does has the same end goal: happiness. In addition to not being dependent on others, this is what Aristotle considers the definition of “self-sufficient,” and states that “it is a generally accepted view that the perfect good is self-sufficient” (I.vii). This means that goodness is not necessary to achieve something more; it is what everything tends to achieve. There is no goal to which goodness leads, and it is because happiness qualifies as such that defines it as the supreme good. No one wants to be happy for the sake of something else, but everyone pursues happiness solely because it will make them happy. Other goals such as honor, intelligence, and wealth are really just means to the ultimate goal of happiness. Aristotle disagrees with Plato's claim that there is universal good, so to keep up with the metaphor, Aristotle did not believe that all good came from an omniscient and omnipotent God. Instead, he believed that good could also come from within oneself, and he describes different types and categories of goodness (Aristotle I.vi). If goodness is happiness, Aristotle does not need to outline the advantages of this way of life, as people naturally desire to be happy. If he reveals the secret of happiness, people will try everything he lists. As with Plato's concept of goodness, there are no real downsides to living a good, happy, virtuous life, but they can be from other perspectives. For example, temperance is an important factor in such a life, but some people enjoy their excesses of pleasure and wealth and would not like to give them up. Once again, happiness is an obvious advantage for one who pursues the good, and to achieve it, he must become virtuous, so his character is vastly improved both morally and emotionally in the pursuit of the good. This not only benefits one person, but affects those around them. Aristotle states: "Only the friendship of those who are good and similar in their goodness is perfect" (VIII.iii). Therefore, goodness must be achieved not in just one, but in both friends, to achieve a complete form of friendship, necessary for a happy life. Goodness, as described by Aristotle, can be found, for example, in someone who embodies all the virtues and contemplates life. If he had lived in the 20th century, he might have seen Martin Luther King Jr. as a good person, for his wisdom and justice in the civil rights movement and for his temperance and courage in his protests. Aristotle sees evil as someone who commits crimes or has vices that do not even have a meaning, such as murder or malice, where "the excess or deficiency of them is not evil", but instead "in their case, then, it is impossible to act justly; one is always wrong" (II.vi). Adolf Hitler fits this onedescription, where genocide and discrimination have no means. Aristotle uses his entire book to outline the way to achieve goodness and be happy. The main way he indicates to begin this quest is to become both an intellectually and morally virtuous person. First, Aristotle states: “Intellectual virtue owes both its beginning and its development chiefly to education, and for this very reason needs time and experience” (II.i). So intellectual virtue simply needs to be taught, unlike moral virtue, which, according to Aristotle, can be acquired in a few different steps. The first and most important method is habituation, and without habituation there is no way to become truly virtuous. This means that one must constantly, intentionally, behave morally and virtuously to become a good and happy person. A simple way to start acting in this way is to follow the laws of a good constitution, for Aristotle explains: “Legislators make their citizens good through habituation; this is the intention of every legislator” (II.i). By following laws that restrict people from engaging in evil activities, one will begin to be naturally inclined to participate only in moral activities and shun evil. Virtue can also be pursued by acting only on the average that falls within the vices, that is, by finding a moderate way of acting or feeling that is neither excessive nor deficient (Aristotle II.vi). Someone is following this “doctrine of the mean” when they act with courage, temperance, or patience, for example, instead of cowardice, licentiousness, or irascibility (Aristotle II.vii). These will also come easily with getting used to. Once virtue is a habit, it is necessary to also have friends to be truly happy. However, not just any friends will do, but only perfect friendships rather than friendships for utility or pleasure (Aristotle VIII.iii). This type of friendship can only be formed between two virtuous people who want the best for each other, which is why it must be the second step after obtaining virtue. Loneliness is not beneficial for the good person, because otherwise he will have no one to direct his goodness towards. Aristotle's final step to living a happy life is to live a life of contemplation, since happiness is contemplation. This is because it is the best activity you can take part in and because it can take place over an extended period of time, unlike most other activities. Contemplation is also the only self-sufficient action, which is the requirement of something truly good, because it is the end in itself and does not require anything or anyone to happen (Aristotle X.vii). In conclusion, as long as one leads a virtuous and contemplative life among true and virtuous friends, he will be a good and, consequently, happy person. Although Aristotle was a student of Plato, they disagreed on some fundamental concepts. Their main disagreement addressed in the Nicomachean Ethics was Aristotle's rejection of Plato's theory of universal good. Aristotle instead believed that different things could be good in different ways, as opposed to one good from which all truth derives. This theory has more support than Plato's theory, as good can come in various forms, such as how both qualities and beings can be described as good. Plato also believed that laws would not be necessary if people were good and received the right education, but Aristotle argued that laws were what allowed people to become accustomed to goodness. The modern world agrees with Aristotle on this point, since no existing country is without rules or laws. Although Aristotle highlighted their disagreements, both.