Plato and Aristotle have similar views on the achievement of the good life but also many important differences. While both Plato and Aristotle believe that the good life is one that attains happiness and that only a philosophical life will bring ultimate happiness which will therefore lead to the good life, the main difference between the two is the status or nature of the good and thus happiness. In this essay I shall explain both Plato’s and Aristotle’s views on the good life and how it should be attained.
Plato’s good life is an idealist view, as he came up with the theory of ideas (ideas come first, then the world) The ‘good’ to Plato is somehow different to the actual object we see, as the good is outside the world (in the world of ideas) To ‘see’ the good of ideas we must use our rationality. He believed that the entities are corruptible as they change (they possess becoming) To live a good life one must know what the good life is as an idea. The ‘good’ ‘moral’ and ‘truth’ are all ideas and the ‘Good’ is the idea of ideas. The good is an absolute term; being self-evident, transcendental and consistent. Plato believed that the Good life equals truth which equals knowledge which equals morality. According to Plato, to lead a good life one must have internal self-control – one must know one’s self. Plato also believed that you must have a self-disciplined mind to have a good mind.
One way Plato explained his idea of the good life was by using the ‘Leaky jar analogy’ He believed in the solid jar; the jar can be filled easily (i.e. satisfying a limited amount of desire) it doesn’t require refilling (i.e. the person doesn’t spend their life constantly chasing their desires) Although some criticisms of this analogy include that it may not be possible as it seems to conflict with human nature and that people would ultimately become bored, as even these ‘content’ people will desire something more.
The most famous passage in all of Plato’s writings occurs in the Republic, and is known as the Myth of the Cave. In it Plato puts into symbolic form his view of the human condition. Imagine, he says, a big cave, connected to the outside world by a passage long enough to prevent any daylight from penetrating into the cave itself. Facing the far wall, with their backs to the entrance, is a row of prisoners. Not only are their limbs chained, they are also fastened by their neck so they cannot move their heads, and therefore cannot see one another and cannot see themselves. All they can see is the wall in front of them. They have been in this situation their entire life, and do not know any different. In the cave, behind them is a bright fire. Unknown to them there is a rampart behind them and on the other side of the rampart are people passing to and fro carrying things on their heads. The shadows of these objects are cast on the wall. The voices of these people are also echoed against the wall. In these circumstances it would be natural for them to assume that shadows and echoes constitute all the reality there is, this is their reality. If one of these prisoners could shake off his chains, cramped he would be from staying in the same spot all his life that it would be extremely painful just to move. The fire would dazzle his eyes. He would find himself confused and uncomprehending, he would want to turn around back to the wall he knew. Although if he were dragged up out of the cave altogether into the world of the blazing sunlight he would be blinded and bewildered and it would be a long time before he were able to see or understand anything. But then, once he was used to the upper world, he would return to the cave and try to explain everything he now knows to the prisoners, but he would have no success. The way to begin understanding this allegory is to see us human beings as imprisoned in our own bodies with only other such prisoners for company, and unable to discern the real selves of one another, or even our real selves. Our direct experience is not of reality, but what it is in our minds. Once someone has been outside of the cave and settled with the sunlight, they can now understand the world and he is able to gain knowledge of the true reality and become a philosopher and therefore he can start to begin to live the good life.
Plato had in mind the idea of a Utopian state, an imaginary, ideal state that would be governed by philosophers. He wanted a perfect society that would encounter no problems, present problems would be eased and happiness would prevail. His society would consist of three classes: rulers, auxiliaries and labourers. The rulers would be the philosopher kings, would always rule the state. The auxiliaries (warriors) would defend the state and the labourers would be responsible for material production of goods needed by the state. Plato believed that the philosopher kings should run the state as they are the wisest and most virtuous, therefore the best possible candidates.
For Plato, the largest problem is he cannot explain in a rational way how the idea of good communicates or shares it’s ‘goodness’ with the things in the world.

For Aristotle the ‘good’ of something can only be expressed analogously, so the good of things can be understood in terms of a things function. He believed that every action aims at something else. Knowledge of the ‘chief good’ will make our lives better, because we’ll know what we’re aiming for (analogy of archers needing to know their target) It would then be asked which field is best suited to study the chief good? Aristotle would then answer with Politics. He believed that the good in each field is the reason why everything in that field is done. For example a military strategy is designed to have victory. Aristotle presented a hierarchy of goods and some goods are subordinate to others. The final good of human activity concerns politics (polis) This is because politics sets the laws. Aristotle said that we should be virtuous and act virtuously such as courage, in that a deficiency in this virtue is cowardice, while an excessively brave person is foolhardy. As Aristotles main argument for the good life is that a good life is understood in terms of a things function (How well they perform their function) he needed to find the human function to give a definition of a good life for a human. A good human will be one who fulfils the function of human well. A things function must be unique to it. An active life of reason is unique to humans, and it is our function. A criticism to this was that animals reason too, although Aristotle would respond that yes, they may be able to reason, but they do not live a life of reason. Another criticism was; what about humans who are incapable of a life of reason? (eg. Mentally disabled) Aristotle isn’t talking about these. He wouldn’t consider them ‘humans’ as they lack reason OR he might say they are human but incapable of leading a good life as they lack the function (like a sheep dog with no legs) So a good life is a life of reasoning well. What does it mean to do something well? Aristotle believed to do something well one must do it in accordance with virtue. Virtue relies on repeatedly doing the virtuous thing, it’s not enough to have a virtuous state but never act virtuously. They must also enjoy acting virtuously. How do we learn to act virtuously? Trial & Error, but try to avoid excess and defect. How do we learn to act virtuously? Trial & Error, but try to avoid excess and defect. Virtue must be a state of character. The good life cannot be absolute, but in order to know it one can only approximate it. Children cannot reach happiness because they are young, unstable and inexperienced in life.
Aristotle believed that people were born with a sense of reality. He thinks that people gain knowledge and understanding of reality by using their sense and observing specific things they see in the world, and then analysing the facts to come up with a conclusion or theory about them. Aristotle also thought that the world was made of natural forms instead of ideal forms. Another difference about Aristotle and Plato’s approach is that they focus on two very different topics. Plato is more focused on the perfection of the world and how people come to know about this. While Aristotle focuses more on the observations in nature and he knows not everything in nature is perfect. Aristotle also speaks about how happiness is the highest good and the end at which everything we do aims for. For example we buy a coat to wear it when it’s cold, therefore keeping us warm. Happiness is an end in itself.
Aristotle, unlike Plato, was not focused or concerned about the idea of a perfect society, instead he wanted to improve upon the one that he was part of during his existence. He believed that society should strive to utilize the best system it can attain. He felt that utopia was unrealistic and pointless. It would be best that society was at its highest potential and you can only improve upon the existing one.