Can we live good lives in corrupt societies

Who's to define what "good" is? Perhaps the best way to define "good" is to take into consideration John Stuart Mill's utilitarian approach to ethics. Utilitarianism encompasses the idea that an ethical action is one that produces the greatest good, but it is difficult to make "goodness" tangible, and goodness is often associated with happiness, which is also difficult to categorize or measure. For some people, living a good life might be spending time with family and having a nice, balanced supper every night. For others, happiness might be spending time alone, or sleeping in on a rainy day. In extreme cases, as we discussed in class, the greatest good for a psychopath or a serial killer would be the pleasure of killing others. What does it mean, then, to live a good life? In agreement with philosopher John Locke, I will set a premise similar to his and argue that since it is human nature to seek natural goodness, despite government interference, then it is possible to make your own good and live well in society, despite corruption.

For example, we live in Brazil, a country with a worldwide reputation of having a corrupt government. I believe that I live a good life, not only because of material security, but also because I have a loving family, great friends, and a great education. Through this lens, though, I am only taking into consideration my own idea of goodness, which is microscopic in comparison to the whole population of Brazil. Because of the corrupt government, many poor children are not getting proper education, and many others are either dying of hunger or disease because of poor management of public health care. Those assumptions and premises regarding what it means to live a good life are mostly based on financial standing, but money isn't always what makes something or someone "good." Is it moral to say that only those who can support themselves and their families live good lives in corrupt societies?

Well, lets take a look at completely different interpretations of a "good life." According to Buddha's theory, in order to achieve enlightenment and consequently a good life, humans should see beyond the material world. If I base my life on Buddha's interpretations then, I would not be completely living a good life in a corrupt society, because I would also be partially corrupt, since part of my criteria for living a good life was based on monetary safety that my family is able to provide me with. However, is having money and being able to live comfortably synonymous for corruption? It very well could be, because if we dig deep into monetary ethical dilemmas, then I would be corrupt because I barely do anything to provide starving children with a stock of food, and I do not supply money for poor children to get the same education as I do. Does that make me a bad person? I disagree, because I'm not deliberately choosing to steal money from public institutions, even because my parents are honest people, who believe that monetary merit comes from hard work and integrity. But again, that is my notion of moral standards, one which I learned from my parents, who in turn, learned from their parents or their environment. How do poor people live good lives in corrupt societies, then? There are different levels of poverty, and poor is also not synonymous for no money at all. A poor family might be tight on money and might not indulge in luxuries of middle and upper classes, but they might be hardworking and still live comfortably enough to be achieving their greatest good. To what extent is it moral to separate the rich and the poor as the main premises for defining a "good life"?

Relating back to the History unit, the article I read for the socratic seminar dealt with the ethical dilemmas of apologies. It relates to this idea of good and corrupt because it raises the important question: when is it appropriate to apologize for something? Should we make apologies? In part, the question of whether we should apologize or not relates to yet another way of looking at this post's question. Apologies are successful in the short term, when the one who should receive the apology is there to receive it, but they are highly abstract once a government such as the French, for example, decides to apologize for slavery specifically in the fifthteenth century. Who would receive those formal apologies? Should those from the present apologize for what happened in the past, which they have no direct involvement in? Living a good life in a corrupt society follows a similar path of questioning. Who dictates the necessities for living a good life? Should those who consider themselves living good lives be proven wrong simply because other people might not live good lives in a corrupt government, even though the ones living good lives might have nothing to do with the corruption of society? If we look at this last question through the categorical imperative lens, then saying that no one can live a good life in a corrupt society because some people can't would have to become a universal truth. That would be a very one-sided universal truth, though, because it would look only at the definition of "good life" being that of the rich in comparison to that of the poor. There are other factors which cause people to live, or at least believe, that they live good lives. The categorical imperative then would have to originate from the premise that a corrupt society doesn't hinder the possibility of living a "good life." That could easily become a universal truth because it would encompass different factors which can be independent of the fact that the society is corrupt. Thus, depending on our personal or cultural ethical premises, we can find different meanings for what it is to live a "good life" and corruption would simply be another factor in the moral equation and not necessarily the defining standard.