An Analysis Of Plato's Argument About The Good Life
For the first condition I will analyse whether his inference ‘that everyone always ought to follow the middle course between certain kinds of activities’ is justified.
There is some situation that does not have a middle course. For example, there is no middle for keeping a promise and breaking a promise. This seems to be an absolute value, not a relative one. Furthermore, moderation is not always the right thing. Some situations require extreme behaviour. Some people have passionate, flamboyant personalities. I believe that Plato’s absolutism would be more appropriate than Aristotle’s relativist in this situation.
In conclusion, Aristotle’s argument about the ‘good life’ demonstrates that the good life for people is a life of happiness. Plato’s however does not as he believes living the good life needs knowledge. From the reasons above, Aristotle’s solution to the problem of the ‘good life’ is a better answer than Plato. On the other hand, Aristotle’s golden mean would not work however Plato’s absolutism will work in the situation in keeping a promise and breaking a promise. From the reasons stated above Plato’s absolutism will be a better answer than Aristotle’s