Good Life / Good Human Being
Dialogue — Student Assignment Guide
The Week 3 dialogue asks you to do three things at once: describe what Greek thinkers said about the good life, interpret what they meant, and then evaluate it through a Christian lens. Most students nail one or two of those. This guide shows you how to hit all three — and write a response that actually engages the question rather than just listing facts about Plato and the Sermon on the Mount.
📜 Working on the Good Life dialogue or a Greek civilization faith integration assignment? Our history and humanities specialists can help.
Get Assignment Help →What the Assignment Is Actually Asking — Read This Before Anything Else
You have 250–300 words to compare and contrast the Greek concept of virtue and human excellence (Arête) with the Christian concept as taught by Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew. Then you evaluate — as a Christian — which picture of the good life holds up. This isn’t a history summary. It’s a three-part intellectual move: describe, interpret, evaluate.
The assignment prompt names three levels of historical analysis from the faith-integration model. Students who only do the first level — describing what Greeks believed — usually land somewhere in the C range. The B student adds interpretation. The A student moves to all three levels and actually takes a position in the evaluative stage, grounded in Matthew’s text.
The word limit is tight. 250–300 words is about one full page double-spaced. That means every sentence has to carry weight. You can’t afford a long setup about ancient Greece or a paragraph summarizing the entire Sermon on the Mount. Cut straight to the comparison.
What “faith-integration” means here
This isn’t a prompt asking you to prove Christianity is right or Greece was wrong. It’s asking you to apply a Christian evaluative lens to historical findings — to assess where Greek and Christian frameworks converge, where they diverge, and what that means for how you understand the good life. That’s an intellectual exercise, not a sermon.
Greek Arête — What It Actually Meant
Arête is usually translated as “excellence” or “virtue,” but neither word fully captures it. In Greek thought, Arête wasn’t just about being a morally good person. It was about functioning at your highest capacity — doing what you were made to do, and doing it superbly. A knife has Arête when it cuts well. A horse has Arête when it runs fast. A human being has Arête when they fulfill their highest function — whatever that function is defined to be. And here’s where the Greek thinkers diverge from each other.
That shift from Homer to Plato to Aristotle is important for your response. It shows that Greek civilization itself was wrestling with the question — the definition of human excellence changed over four centuries of debate. Your assignment benefits from acknowledging that this wasn’t a monolithic Greek view. It was a conversation.
For Aristotle, virtue isn’t a feeling or an intention. It’s a stable disposition produced by repeated action. You don’t become courageous by deciding to be courageous. You become courageous by doing courageous things until it becomes second nature.
— Core concept from the Nicomachean Ethics, Book IIOne key feature of Greek Arête that your response needs to address: it was fundamentally this-worldly. The good life, for the Greeks, was lived here — in the polis, in the body, in the exercise of reason and civic virtue. Plato’s philosopher-king is the best human being because he knows the highest truths and governs accordingly. Aristotle’s flourishing human lives fully in community. Neither framework requires reference to God, transcendence, or an afterlife. That’s a critical point of contrast with Matthew.
Homer Through Aristotle — What You Need to Know for This Assignment
You don’t need to write a biography of every Greek thinker. But you do need to know enough about each to make your comparison accurate. Here’s the minimum viable knowledge for this response.
Homer — Arête as Warrior Excellence
The Iliad and Odyssey set the baseline definition of human excellence for Greek culture
In Homer’s world, the great human being is the warrior. Achilles embodies physical courage and passionate honor. Odysseus embodies cunning intelligence and endurance. The good life in the Homeric tradition involves winning glory (kleos), earning the recognition of peers, and proving yourself in competition and battle. It’s deeply public — virtue has no meaning if no one sees it. The good man is the man the community recognizes as excellent. This is Arête at its most aristocratic and competitive.
For your assignment, the key contrast with Christian virtue is immediate: Homeric excellence is about status, competition, and public recognition. Matthew’s Beatitudes open with “blessed are the poor in spirit” — a complete inversion of that logic.
Socrates and Plato — Arête as Knowledge of the Good
Virtue is knowledge; ignorance is the only real sin
Socrates argued that no one does wrong willingly — if people knew what was truly good, they would do it. Virtue, for Socrates, is a kind of knowledge. Plato developed this into a full metaphysical system: the Form of the Good is the highest reality, and the philosopher who grasps it through reason lives the best life. Plato’s Allegory of the Cave — in which prisoners mistake shadows for reality until one escapes into the sunlight — illustrates the journey from ignorance to knowledge that the good human being must undertake.
For the assignment, the relevant contrast is this: Plato locates moral excellence in intellectual achievement. The best human being is the philosopher. Jesus does not. Matthew’s Gospel consistently elevates the humble, the poor, the childlike, and the servant — figures who would not appear anywhere near the top of Plato’s hierarchy of souls.
If you want a reliable external source on Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, the TED-Ed video by Alex Gendler gives a clear summary you can use as a reference point alongside your primary course readings.
Aristotle — Arête as Habituated Virtue and Eudaimonia
The most practically detailed account of the good life in Greek philosophy
Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics is the most systematic treatment of virtue in ancient philosophy. He defines Eudaimonia — often translated “happiness” but better rendered “flourishing” or “living well” — as the highest human good. It’s achieved through the exercise of virtue in accordance with reason over a complete life. Virtue, for Aristotle, is a mean between excess and deficiency. Courage is the mean between cowardice and recklessness. Generosity is the mean between miserliness and prodigality. And crucially, virtue must be practiced to become stable — you can’t just know what courage is; you have to do courageous acts until courageous behavior becomes your default response.
Aristotle also emphasized that the good life is a social one. Human beings are political animals (zoon politikon). Flourishing requires community, friendship, and civic participation. The isolated human being is either a beast or a god — not fully human. This social dimension is one place where Greek and Christian frameworks have real overlap: both understand the good life as relational. But the nature of those relationships differs significantly.
Christian Virtue in the Gospel of Matthew — What Jesus Defines as the Good Life
The assignment specifically asks you to use Matthew. That’s intentional — Matthew is the most “Jewish” of the four Gospels in its framing, and it presents Jesus explicitly as one who fulfills and redefines the Hebrew Law. Your response needs to engage Matthew directly, not just cite “Christian values” in the abstract.
Three sections of Matthew are most relevant for this assignment.
The Beatitudes — Matthew 5:3–12
The opening of the Sermon on the Mount inverts almost every Greek assumption about excellence
The Beatitudes are not a list of virtues to practice. They’re declarations about who is blessed — and the list is striking in its inversions. Poor in spirit, mournful, meek, hungry for righteousness, merciful, pure in heart, peacemakers, persecuted. None of these appear in Aristotle’s picture of the flourishing human being. The Homeric warrior would find this list baffling — meekness and mourning signal weakness, not excellence. Plato’s philosopher doesn’t show up here either.
For your assignment, the Beatitudes give you the clearest single point of contrast: Greek excellence is something you achieve through effort, reason, and action. The Beatitudes describe people who are already blessed — not because of what they’ve achieved, but because of their posture before God and neighbor. The locus of the good life shifts from human self-realization to divine gift and relational orientation.
The Great Commandment — Matthew 22:36–40
Love as the organizing principle of all virtue
When asked which commandment is the greatest, Jesus answers with two: love God with everything you have, and love your neighbor as yourself. He then says all the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commands. This is the Christian framework for human excellence in one sentence. Virtue isn’t a list of individual traits to cultivate. It’s a relational orientation — toward God and toward other people — from which everything else flows.
Compare that to Aristotle’s four cardinal virtues (courage, temperance, justice, prudence) or Plato’s philosopher’s pursuit of wisdom. Those are about the individual soul achieving its proper order. The Great Commandment makes the other person — even the stranger — constitutive of what it means to live well. You can’t be fully good in isolation from God and neighbor.
The Sermon on the Mount (Extended) — Matthew 5–7
A reframing of law, righteousness, and what it means to be truly human
Throughout Matthew 5–7, Jesus repeatedly uses the structure “you have heard it was said… but I say to you.” He intensifies and interiorizes the law — moving from external behavior to internal motivation. It’s not enough to avoid murder; you must address anger. It’s not enough to avoid adultery; lust itself is the problem. This is about the formation of the heart, not just the regulation of conduct. That’s a different account of what it means to be a good human being than anything in the Greek tradition, which focused primarily on the cultivation of outward rational and social virtues.
The conclusion of the Sermon (Matthew 7:24–27) — building your house on rock versus sand — frames the entire discourse as a choice about what you orient your life around. The good human being, in Matthew’s picture, is one who hears Jesus’ words and puts them into practice. That’s not knowledge as Plato meant it. It’s enacted trust — what the New Testament calls faith.
Greek vs. Christian — Where They Overlap and Where They Break
A good compare-and-contrast response doesn’t just list differences. It identifies where the two frameworks actually share ground — and then shows where the road forks. Here’s how that looks for this assignment.
| Dimension | Greek Arête | Christian Virtue (Matthew) |
|---|---|---|
| What is the goal? | Eudaimonia — human flourishing through excellence in this life | Life in the Kingdom of Heaven — relationship with God and neighbor, now and beyond |
| How is virtue acquired? | Through habituation, rational practice, education (Aristotle); or philosophical knowledge (Plato) | Through heart transformation, hearing and doing Jesus’ words, reliance on God’s grace |
| Who is the ideal person? | The warrior (Homer), the philosopher (Plato), the magnanimous man (Aristotle) | The humble, merciful, meek, pure in heart — the servant leader |
| Role of community | Essential — the polis shapes and recognizes virtuous character (Aristotle) | Essential — love of neighbor is inseparable from love of God; the church as community |
| Role of God / transcendence | Minimal or absent in Aristotle; Plato’s Forms transcend the material but are not personal | Central — the good life is defined by relationship to God; virtue flows from that orientation |
| What about suffering? | Aristotle: extreme suffering can undermine flourishing; the good life requires external goods | Suffering can be redemptive; the persecuted are blessed (Matthew 5:10–12) |
| Public vs. private virtue | Homeric: virtue requires public recognition; even Aristotle’s great-souled man is public-facing | Matthew 6: pray, give, fast in secret; the Father who sees in secret rewards |
The best compare-contrast responses do this one thing
They identify a shared concern and then show how the two frameworks answer it differently. Both Greek and Christian thought agree that the good life requires virtue, that community matters, and that human beings need to be formed in certain ways. The disagreement is about the source, goal, and content of that formation. That’s your organizing argument — not “Greeks were wrong, Christians are right,” but “here’s what they share, here’s where they diverge, and here’s what I make of that difference.”
The Three-Level Analysis — How to Actually Use It
The assignment explicitly references the faith-integration model’s three levels of analysis. Most students use the first two without realizing it, and skip the third. Here’s what each level looks like applied to this specific prompt.
Descriptive — What did the Greeks believe?
State the facts clearly. Greeks defined the good life as Eudaimonia achieved through Arête. Homer emphasized warrior excellence and public honor. Plato linked virtue to rational knowledge of the Form of the Good. Aristotle defined virtue as habituated rational excellence practiced in community. Matthew presents Jesus teaching the Beatitudes and the Great Commandment. This is your foundation — don’t skip it, but don’t spend more than 40% of your word count here.
Interpretive — What does it mean and why does it matter?
Identify the underlying assumptions in each framework. Greek Arête assumes human beings are primarily rational creatures whose telos (purpose) is excellence in this world. Jesus’ teaching in Matthew assumes human beings are primarily relational creatures whose telos is life with God and neighbor — a telos that transcends physical death. The difference isn’t just content; it’s the entire frame within which the question is answered.
Evaluative — What do we make of this as Christians?
This is the level most students avoid because it feels presumptuous. Don’t avoid it — it’s the point. You’re not dismissing Greek thought; you’re assessing it. You might argue that Aristotle’s account of habituated virtue has genuine insight that Christians can affirm — virtue does require practice, character is formed over time, community matters. But the Christian framework corrects Aristotle at key points: the goal isn’t self-realized flourishing but God-given life; the model of excellence isn’t the magnanimous man but the crucified servant; and the capacity for virtue isn’t achieved through reason alone but transformed from the inside out.
How to Structure Your 250–300 Word Response
You’re not writing an essay. You’re writing an academic discussion post. The structure needs to be tight. Here’s one approach that works.
Recommended Structure for the Initial Response
250–300 wordsGreek Arête — core point (3–4 sentences): Focus on Aristotle (most relevant for compare-contrast), with a nod to Homer’s warrior ethos. Key claim: Arête is achieved through rational habituation; the good life is Eudaimonia in this world, earned through excellence in reason, virtue, and civic life.
Christian virtue in Matthew — core point (3–4 sentences): Use the Beatitudes and the Great Commandment directly. Key claim: Jesus defines the good human being not by what they achieve but by their orientation toward God and neighbor — and he consistently elevates those whom Greek culture would consider failures: the meek, the poor, the persecuted.
Convergence and divergence (2–3 sentences): Acknowledge overlap — both value community, formed character, and the social nature of the good life. Then name the key divergence: the source and goal of virtue.
Evaluative claim (2–3 sentences): Take a position. The Christian framework corrects Greek thought by grounding the good life in relationship with God rather than in human self-realization — and by redefining excellence downward (toward humility, service, love) rather than upward (toward power, knowledge, achievement).
Use specific textual references — even short ones
You only have 250–300 words, but you still need to show you’ve read the primary sources. One specific reference to Matthew (e.g., “Blessed are the meek” — 5:5) carries more weight than a vague statement that “Jesus taught humility.” Similarly, citing Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics or naming Plato’s Allegory of the Cave is better than writing “Greek philosophers thought reason was important.”
What to Avoid in This Response
Mistakes That Cost Marks
- Opening with a broad historical summary that uses half your word count before reaching the actual comparison
- Treating Greek philosophy as monolithic — Homer, Plato, and Aristotle have meaningfully different accounts of Arête
- Summarizing the Gospel of Matthew generally instead of engaging specific passages
- Skipping the evaluative level — describing and interpreting without taking a position
- Making the evaluative level a polemic rather than an argument — “Christianity is right” isn’t the same as “here’s why the Christian framework better accounts for X”
- Ignoring points of genuine overlap between Greek and Christian thought — that looks like you haven’t engaged both seriously
What Gets Full Marks
- A specific, arguable opening claim that frames the entire response
- Accurate representation of at least two Greek thinkers with their distinct positions
- Direct engagement with Matthew — specific verses or passages, not just “Jesus taught love”
- A clear comparison that identifies both overlap and divergence
- An evaluative claim that takes a position and gives a reason — not just preference, but argument
- Staying within the word count while covering all three levels of analysis
FAQs — What Students Ask Most About This Assignment
The Argument Your Response Needs to Make
This assignment isn’t asking you to choose a side in a debate. It’s asking you to do three distinct intellectual things: accurately represent what Greek civilization believed about the good life, interpret what that reveals about Greek assumptions, and then evaluate it through the lens of what Jesus teaches in Matthew.
The strongest responses will find real overlap — Aristotle and Jesus both think community is essential to human flourishing, both think virtue requires formation over time, both reject the idea that human beings can live well in isolation. But they’ll also identify the fundamental fork: for the Greeks, the good life is a human achievement; for Jesus in Matthew, it’s a reorientation toward God and neighbor that inverts most of what Greek culture prized.
That argument — stated clearly, grounded in specific texts, and made in 300 words — is the response your professor is looking for. If you need help building or writing it, history and humanities specialists at Smart Academic Writing are available for support at any stage of the writing process.