The Summun Bonum, Eudaimonia, and the State of Nature

(Guest Post by Masen Sherrill)

I have been lucky enough to be a member of the political science department at Western Carolina University for the last three and a half years. My focus lies in the domain of American politics. It was not until I took Dr. Greear’s Political Theory course that I fully grasped the historical philosophies that shaped the dynamic and evolving Constitution of the United States. The spring semester of my third year marked the completion of both my major, minor, and liberal studies. Yet, still, I did not reach the 120 credit hours necessary to graduate. To meet this requirement, I devised a schedule that incorporated courses I would not have otherwise pursued. One such course was Introduction to Cultural Anthropology, taught by Dr. Phillip Coyle.

During the first week of this course, I was introduced to the idea of the “summum bonum.” Dr. Coyle thoughtfully described this as “the good life.” Our textbook in class introduces the idea as human well-being, freedom and happiness (Bodley, 2017, p. 25). All of these factors come together to create what Bodley describes as the “supreme good.” I never anticipated finding a connection between cultural anthropology and political theory. However, the introduction of this topic on the first day immediately challenged that assumption.

The concept of pursuing goodness in life prompted me to revisit the writing of the Greek philosophers. Plato’s Theory of Forms was at the top of my mind. The theory, in simple terms, is meant to explain relativity and provide a benchmark for assessing moral and aesthetic values. In order to do this, Plato splits existence into two realms (Banach, 2006). Dr. Greear describes the realm in which the Forms exist as the noumenal realm. Here, all is perfect. I would argue that it is not necessarily this realm where the summum bonum exists. To me, the summum bonum exists within how society reflects in the Forms. Attaining the summum bonum does not necessitate the realization of "perfection," but rather the establishment of equity among all members of society.

Aristotle, another Greek philosopher, was a student of Plato. He took his ideas of the Forms and greatly challenged them. Aristotle argued that reality is not dependent on the ideal Forms but on the particular substance of physical things. Consequently, he asserts that we can confidently base our beliefs on the tangible, observable world (Vezina, 2007). Aristotle, instead of following the Theory of Forms, introduced his own take on the summum bonum in the Nicomachean Ethics and the Eudemian Ethics (Kraut, 2022). Both cover the idea of eudaimonia. The way in which he describes eudaimonia denotes the idea of living well. Yet, his idea does differ in principle from the summum bonum. As the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy writes, “No one tries to live well for the sake of some further goal; rather, being eudaimon is the highest end, and all subordinate goals—health, wealth, and other such resources—are sought because they promote well-being, not because they are what well-being consists in.” The question always lingers: what is the highest end? Societies within their summun bonum are not trying to accumulate wealth to reach their good life. Bodley writes in relation to the summun bonum, “In this regard, the “best” culture would maximize human freedom, happiness, and the general welfare and would sustain a just and moral society. Individual freedom can be defined positively as the realization of self-interest and negatively as freedom from interference” (p.38). This does not have to do with economic growth. Rather, the summum bonum is sustainable and quite simple. Taking out the economic aspect will give readers and thinkers alike a similar concept to the summum bonum.

Eudaimonia is often translated as happiness. Happiness is not merely a byproduct of pursuing the summum bonum but is intrinsic to its very essence, embodying the harmony between moral goodness and human flourishing. Eudaimonia, to Aristotle, is the highest form of morality. In order to be in this highest form, one must do as Bodley described in the previous paragraph. Summum bonum may simply just describe a broader context than eudaimonia.

Enough of the Greeks. Let’s discuss the state of nature. In political theory, we think of the state of nature as the human condition without political association (Munro, 2024). When I initially encountered the concept of the summum bonum, this was, in all honesty, the interpretation that naturally came to mind. As Dr. Coyle explained it more, I immediately changed this headspace. My mind drifted to Hobbes’ memorable phrase that the state of nature is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” He claims that a higher authority is necessary to have both justice and culture (Munro, 2024). In the summum bonum, this is not true. Rather, the summum bonum relates much closer with Locke’s interpretation of the state of nature.

Hobbes declares that the state of nature is a place of constant fear, chaos, and conflict. Here, the summum bonum would never be attainable. Locke, however, would vastly disagree. In his Second Treatise on Government, he states, “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions” (Locke, 1690). Perhaps, when I was making the connection, I was thinking of Locke. Locke views the state of nature as a condition of relative freedom and equality, governed by natural law, which dictates that people should not harm others in their life, liberty, or property. Humans, in Locke’s perspective, are obligated to respect each other. This is vital in the summum bonum.

Thank you, Dr. Greear, for allowing me to write a short piece on the intersection of cultural anthropology and political theory for this insightful blog. I hope readers gain an appreciation for how different political philosophies are deeply influenced by their underlying visions of the highest good. I am thankful for learning about this intersection, and I hope to have provided valuable insight.

Works Cited
Banach, D. (2006). Plato’s Theory of Forms. George Mason University.

https://olli.gmu.edu/docstore/600docs/0903-602-Plato-Theory%20of%20Forms.pdf Bodley, J. H. (2016). Cultural anthropology: Tribes, states, and the global system. Rowman &

Littlefield. (2017)
Kraut, R. (2022, July 2). Aristotle’s ethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/
Locke, J. (2004). Second treatise of government. Barnes & Noble Publishing. (1690) Munro, A. (2024, December 11). State of nature. Encyclopedia Britannica.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/state-of-nature-political-theory
Vezina, B. (2007). Universals and particulars: Aristotle’s ontological theory and criticism of the platonic forms. Undergraduate Review, 3.