Is it possible to live a good life in a corrupt society?

Initially, this question seems uninsurable, given all we have learned in TOK. While unpacking the question is helpful and makes the question answerable it is only under the premises of the unpacking. The words good and corrupt and even society are littered with knowledge issues that make this question hard to approach and, unfortunately, can lead an entire part of the question unanswered. Who decides what good is? Who decides what corrupt is? These words already have many definitions in our own language and culture. Corruption’s exact meaning is different when one is referring to religion or politics and across the globe different countries have different opinions about what other countries are corrupt. At what point is a group of interacting people considered a society? Is there some kind of size restriction? Although it would an interesting topic, unfortunately, this isn’t a thesis (I lack both the research and the time for that) so I wont be able to approach the question from all the angles I would like to.

First I would like to point out that if you where to ask a member of this “corrupt society” if it is possible to live a good life in their society, they could very well say yes (probably not if they are suffering some kind of depression or just happen to have a really bad day). This is because their definitions of good and corrupt might be different than ours. If corrupt is sinful, like it often is in religion, then maybe their sins are different than ours. Maybe not taking human babies and drinking them as smoothies in the morning is considered wasteful, which could be a lot worse (in their society) than slaughtering babies. However, it could go the other way as well. Perhaps they see their society as corrupt. But if they do then they could try to live a “good” life. But then again, they might think good means not wasting babies. It’s very relative. Therefor, the answer could very well be anything depending on the character living his/her life, the society, their definition of good, corrupt, ext.

Now that we have some perspective on the knowledge issues in this question, lets actually try and give it an answer. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to approach this without unpacking the question, which, admittedly, makes it less exciting. Now, in order to make this question realistic it may be helpful to choose an individual I know a lot about, for example me. Is it possible for someone like me to live a good life in a corrupt society? This eliminates some of the knowledge issues that would come with choosing an individual from that society. And as we saw before, dealing with those is no picnic. Lets continue unpacking. What is good? Well, good in this case will mean moral (I realize this is broad definition, but it gives me the opportunity to talk about some of the moral philosophers we talked about in class). Then, it logically fallows that corrupt is the opposite of that (we are going for the more religious definition, both because my knowledge of politics is limited and because a politically corrupt society is less extreme, and thereby probably easier to live a good life in). The society will be a typical country, but in it the corruption will be extreme (not wasting babies extreme) in order to make the difficulties of living a good life evident.

Sense I spent a lot of my time researching Bentham I will start with a utilitarian approach. In utilitarianism the moral approach is on that leads to the greatest possible happiness for the grates number of people.  Well, assuming the society is extremely corrupt (which we are), blending babies and yanking people’s fingernails and off and feeding them to them probably brings a lot of happiness to a lot of people. If such happiness outweighs the pain (and Bentham would say) of the blended baby or torturei then it would be morally right to participate in these actions. Would I want to? No. Would I have to? Yes. If killing babies brings enough happiness to outweigh the pain (including its intensity, duration, certainty, proximity, productiveness, purity, and extent) of the baby then I would be forced to kill babies in order to live a good life. What an interesting result, wouldn’t you say? As I’m sure phycology would verify (if this was a TOK paper I’d make sure), and as I’ve been told countless times, bringing happiness to others brings happiness to me. I would be happy and living a good life. However, the cultural shock would be enormous. Again, as I’m sure phycology would verify, I would probably spend the entire life being traumatized. I might wake up screaming about the thousands of babies I had to blend or watched people blend. Although I would be in pain it might not outweigh the happiness it would bring to others, not only see me suffer but to kill more babies. In this case a philosopher like Epicurus would have a heart attack, this is not at all his definition of moral. He would argue (most likely, I never knew him personally) for an individual like me it would be imposable for me to live a good life in a society of such a corrupt nature. It would then logically follow that I must retract from such a society and either live in secluded home (somewhere nice like the tropics) or join another society. I would have to do whatever brought me the most happiness, which would defiantly not be staying in that society.

Now we’ve come to the opposite conclusion under the same unpacking of the question. The difference is the moral system, and depending on this system we could to two answers that are polar opposites. So what is the final verdict? Call me selfish, but I personally believe Epicurus is right in this case (mostly because I would rather not be traumatized repeatedly for the rest of my life). Now, if I had grown up in that society it would be a different story, but sense I’m already over 1000 words I think I’ll stop here. Both points of view are valid, but one doesn’t lead to me suffering for the rest of my life. By simply changing good to mean “a moral, yet not filled with endless suffering, life” (which is a totally realistic definition of a good life) now this is a valid logical conclusion.