The nature of goodness is starkly disparate between Plato and Aristotle. Plato argues for a higher form of goodness, while Aristotle counters with a social form of goodness. Aristotle's view of goodness is much more realistic for the real world and disproves Plato's belief that goodness is eternal, essential, and universal. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Plato presents a dualist view of goodness. His goodness is an absolute form above society and its interactions. Plato states at the conclusion of his allegory of the cave: "...the whole soul must be turned away from this changing world, until its eye can bear to contemplate reality and that supreme splendor which we have called the Good" (Republic 232 ). It obviously holds goodness in high regard and as an entity separate from society, making it a dualist view. He invites a person to seek good by distancing himself from society because society is analogous to the cave in his allegory; this person must emerge into the light to seek goodness. Plato believes that goodness exists outside of society and is an intangible form, but is attainable through careful and meticulous thought, as exemplified by Plato's allegorical prisoner who strives for the blinding light: goodness. For Plato, knowledge is real; the highest form of this knowledge is goodness. He is illustrated by the light in his allegory: “…looking at the light of the fire itself, it would not hurt his eyes” (Repubblica 229). Continuing with his allegory of the cave, Plato illustrates how firelight can reveal a distorted view of the surrounding environment, or truth. Goodness is sought when the prisoner emerges and sees the truth of the world in full light, the sun. There, the sun illuminates everything in a radiant and clear vision, giving the prisoner a full sense of the world, of the truth. Aristotle, however, illustrates a relativist view of goodness. Aristotle offers a contrasting view of goodness by arguing that it exists within the confines of society and therefore, without society, there would be no goodness. Aristotle's goodness is illustrated when actions “do these things to the right person, in the right measure, at the right time, with the right motive and in the right way, is not what everyone can do, and it is not at all easy… to do the good is a rare and praiseworthy thing” (Ethics 363). Goodness is determined by actions taken in society. This is relativism since there are many actions that exist in the world. Both philosophers refer to goodness as a rather difficult tribute to obtain, but it is the physical and metaphysical nature of goodness that triggers the discrepancy between Plato and Aristotle. Plato strongly disagrees with Aristotle by stating, "It should be a matter of knowledge, not of personal experience" in describing what qualities make the best judge in a court of law, meaning that knowledge is much more valuable than action (Republic 90 ). Plato's goodness wants to illustrate the only truth which is the knowledge of action. Aristotle's goodness, however, is more realistic because it offers a flexible definition of goodness for an ever-changing world. It effectively opposes Plato's view of goodness as it expands Plato's goodness and makes it exist in society, not away from and above it. Aristotle disproves Plato with his physical definition of goodness ultimately due to the constant change in this world. A higher form of goodness cannot realistically stand the test of time. With time now introduced as an important factor in goodness, Plato argues that goodness is eternal. Plato presents his formsupreme of eternal goodness stating: "This, then, which gives to the objects of knowledge their truth, and to him who knows them his power of knowing, is the Form or essential nature of Goodness" (Republic 220). Plato's nature of goodness must be eternal because he states that it produces truth, that it is immutable, and therefore goodness must not change over time according to his definition since a Form, like beauty, will be that form perpetually. Plato further states that goodness lies only in the one natural function of an object or person: “more work can be done more easily and better… the only thing for which it is naturally adapted” (Republic 57). This is Plato's definition of virtue, a being must have only one function presented by goodness. He believes that this function is the only truth that remains true regardless of time. Aristotle, however, demonstrates that goodness is not eternal. Aristotle argues that goodness is woven into the function of an object or person through his analogy with artists: “For as the goodness and excellence of a piper or a sculptor, or the practitioner of any art , and generally of those who have some function in the affairs to be performed, lies in that function, so the good of man would seem to lie in his function” (Ethics 353). Aristotle states that the function of an object possesses goodness. A man is definitely temporary and changes frequently, so his goodness is not eternal. Goodness was described as the form that reveals to an object its function by Plato or goodness as the function of an object by Aristotle. The function of an object can change; a hammer can drive a nail into a house, but with a turn of the head it can extract the same nail it just drove. Therefore, goodness from Aristotle's point of view is not eternal. If the function of an object can change, then goodness in Plato's definition must change to reveal a new truth since it was defined by an object having only one function. Aristotle's view is simply more suited to the real world than Plato's. Certainly, the function of an object, its goodness, is best understood when it is used according to the correct situation, time and place, so that that function can be demonstrated, as illustrated with the hammer. He can equally hammer, as well as tear, nails, so his goodness will change, so goodness is not eternal. Plato pushes for essential goodness, but Aristotle demonstrates how goodness is not entirely necessary for functioning and life. Plato states in his sun metaphor: “…you may have the power of sight in your eyes and try to use it…but the sight will see nothing and the colors will remain invisible in the absence of a third thing” (Republic 218). This “third thing” is undoubtedly the sun; Plato argues that goodness is necessary and is the path to truth. He metaphorically compares goodness to the sun, stating that vision is caused by the sun, as truth is caused by goodness. Plato also states that education and education are necessary for a person to realize goodness by stating, “I would rather call it the only sufficient thing: education and education” (Republic 114). For Plato, it is necessary to nourish oneself in order to seek one's essential goodness, therefore education must also be essential. Aristotle argues, however, that goodness is not essential to the individual when he states: “…what is called the function of a man of any profession and the function of a man who is good in that profession are generally the same thing” (Ethics 354). Aristotle states that goodness is irrelevant when talking about how well a person performs a function, refuting Plato's idea of ​​goodness is essential. This allowsthe possibility that a person performs a function poorly and in bad shape. He also illustrates how the goodness of every being simply resides in its nature: “…does man have no task and no function assigned to him by nature? Indeed, certainly since its different members… each clearly have their own function” (Ethics 353). For Aristotle, no education or nurture is necessary to simply realize the goodness already naturally existing in an individual. Goodness is described as an entity essential to the world, by Plato, and also simply as a function of an object that is not critical, by Aristotle. Aristotle illustrates how goodness itself is inessential. Realistically, a person or object can perform a function regardless of how well it is performed. “Goodness is beneficial” according to Plato's definition therefore it will never produce evil; however people function in certain ways that are considerably bad, so goodness is not essential to an individual's functioning (Republic 71). By observing the real world and realizing that there is definitely a negative function, Plato contradicts himself. An essential goodness would not lead to the realization of a bad function. One could argue on Plato's side that a poorly functioning individual has not yet realized goodness, but this individual is operating at some level, so it would be false to say that the absence of goodness prevents the individual from functioning. Furthermore, goodness does not need to be educated since it is in itself inessential. Goodness resides within a person due to function according to Aristotle's standard, but goodness is not entirely essential since goodness in function is only in noble actions. Inessential goodness seems tragic, but it really allows people to be themselves. It is more realistic to be inessential because it allows humans to make mistakes and practice more freely while continuing to live. Plato's goodness is universal and independent of society, but Aristotle reveals how goodness is completely relative to the situation. According to Plato's definition of goodness, there is only one goodness that projects truth into the world. He believes, “…Goodness itself…corresponding to each of these sets of many things, we postulate a single Form or true essence” (Republic 218). Plato argues that goodness is universal because there is a single, all-encompassing goodness that illuminates the truth. This implies that there is only one truth for everything without situational dependence. He believes that goodness itself will reveal the truth of an object in every situation. Instead of the single function and action in each situation, Aristotle argues with situational ethics to illustrate how goodness is purely situation-dependent and completely relative. He illustrates this ideal by quantifying his doctrine of the average: “By an equal or fair amount I mean an average amount, or one that lies between excess and deficiency” (Ethics 359). For Aristotle there is no universality of goodness; with this statement he promotes the doctrine of the average: there is always an average in every situation since there are opposite extremes that contain it. Of course, different situations require different functions. This is where Aristotle's virtue comes in: “…the virtue or excellence of a thing causes that thing…to perform its function well” (Republic 359). In different situations, Aristotle's virtue allows one to act on the situation in the best possible way since Aristotle's goodness is in the function, allowing for multiple functions, which allows an individual to act in the most effective and efficient way with virtue. Plato's virtue for a person is to focus on “the one thing for which he is naturally fitted” (Republic 57). This limits a person because then he can be better..