Carpe Diem, Goodness and Corruption

Carpe diem -- seize the day. Humans strive to live the best possible life, make the most out of their time on Earth as they possibly can. Yet, in a corrupt society, is that still possible? In order to answer this complex question, two vital pieces of information must be determined. The first is the definition of corruption. The Oxford American Dictionary defines corrupt as “having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain” and “evil or morally depraved”. Other definitions exist for corruption, and if those definitions were used to answer the question, a completely different answer would result. However, in order to attain an answer, at least for now, the Oxford American Dictionary’s definition will be used, acting as a premise for the argument. The second piece of information that must be determined is the definition of a “good life”, where it may be taken that either a “good life” is one lived for the social wellbeing or for personal pleasures.

In a corrupt society, people act dishonestly for personal gain. Because our normal state, according to science, is one where we are soft-wired to do good, deviating from this in any manner would lead to a “bad life”. Mirror neurons determine that the natural condition for humans is to have empathetic distress. For instance, when someone gets injured and you see it occur, the same neurons that are being activated in the person who just got hurt will be the same as the neurons in your brain, but your body will send a nerve impulse to your brain to override the mirror neurons, informing that it wasn’t you who got hurt. Our natural state, in a scientific point of view, is to show solidarity with our compassion towards others. In a corrupt society, this is still possible but people purposely distance themselves from others in order to block their brain’s natural response. An example may help with this explanation: for instance, air strikes in another nation during war allow the country to attack another without personally interfering. The barrier that is created between the two powers allows harm to be done without the activation of mirror neurons, as the person activating the air strike button is not interacting with the population affected. This, however, may be viewed as inevitably leading to a “bad life” as you are not conforming with your natural state, and philosophy helps understanding this.

Philosophy has theories for a good and virtuous life that lead to the conclusion that any deviation from the universal principles cannot lead to a “good life”.  Francisco de Vitoria, a Renaissance philosopher, argues that society must follow a specific set of international laws in order to do “good”. If those aren’t complied by, then living a “good life” is not a possibility. A corrupt society causes its members to pursue individual interests. If each member is seeking his or her own goals, then the universal social contract is not being followed. In Vitoria’s perspective, this means that a good life would not be able to be attained. Kohlberg retains a similar perspective. His stages of moral development indicate that the transition from blind egoism to mutual respect as a universal principle is what leads to personal enlightenment. It can thus be established that achieving the higher principles, where universal values are applied to personal standpoints, is when a “good life” is reached, because it is when you are able to see beyond the strict rules of society, and fuse personal interests with the interests of the society, making it one sole entity.  

There are, however, other philosophers that believe that the natural state of humans is for them to purse personal goals and pleasures, and that the state of mankind is evil. Hobbes, for instance, develops the concept that man is naturally selfish, taking corruption as a natural state. Hobbes defines “showing a willingness to act dishonestly for personal gain” as innate, making corruption a natural component of society. Because of this, following your own passions and goals regardless of other people’s interests, should lead to you to a “good” life, as it will bring you pleasure. John Dewey, another moral philosopher, also reinforces the value of following personal pleasures for a “good” life. To Dewey,  “good” life is one lived for yourself, while a “right” life, is one lived for society. Therefore, if a kleptomaniac got pleasure from stealing, then he should continue steeling if he wishes to pursue a good life, far from what Kohlberg and Vitoria would believe. The “right” life for a kleptomaniac would be to stop stealing and conform to the social contract, but if Hobbes’ perspective is taken into consideration, then the Dewey’s “right” life is not human’s natural state, and they will inevitably resort to stealing, following a “good” life.

So, can humans follow a good life even in a corrupt society? In a personal regard, I believe that this is strictly dependent on each individual’s premises of a “good life”. I may believe that I am not able to follow a “good life” because I am surrounded by corruption. However, this does not mean that I am being corrupt myself. Perhaps being surrounded by corruption makes me corrupt too… I am not doing anything to stop this corruption from happening, and thus, pursuing my own interests in leaving the status-quo so that as an individual I can continue living a “good life”, where I strive to be virtuous. For someone else, though, who does not believe that a good life is one where the individual must balance personal beliefs with the social contract (a semi-Kohlbergian philosophy) might completely disagree. Therefore, each individual must decide what to take as his or her premise, in order to evaluate whether in this corrupt society they will be able to pursue their “good lives”, or resort to existentialist basis, where there isn’t even a point to pursing a “good life”.