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

      Carlo Krell

    

         Although I only find myself a musician in my head and often times in the shower, I believe I have a very strong connection with music. In reality, it’s not a connection; what I have with music is an emotional association. Of course I love rhythms, beats, lyrics, and all that stuff, but what I love most about certain songs is that I can easily take an introspective journey with them. One of my favorite bands is called One Republic, and they have a song entitled “Good Life.” The “life” portrayed in the song is that typical male good life (you might imagine what I mean by this), but this is not going to be my focus. When I listen to this song, I usually think of the lyrics as meaningless words; in effect, I end up listening to a set of words that only carries meaning to me. This empty melody therefore allows me to get onto a bus and journey through my thoughts. When I particularly listen to “Oh, this has got to be the good life / This has got to be the good life / This could really be a good life, good life / I say, ‘Oh, got this feeling that you can’t fight,’ “ I think of my good life as opposed to the song’s. So where am I going with this? Well, this whole anecdotal expedition into my passion for music was a way to establish what a good life is for me. A good life is extremely subjective in that what it is for me is completely different than what it is for Student X. In addition, not only is a good life subjective, but also it is entirely directed to the person at spotlight. I classify my life as “good” because I am happy, just like the ethical philosophers Machiavelli and Epicurus argue that humans should always try to get the most out of everything and that they should be free to be on the pursuit of happiness. However, with the question “Is it possible to live a good life in a corrupt society?” in mind, I find myself in a very deep and ugly-looking swamp. Why? A corrupt society is one in which people dishonestly act for their own gain, and a good life, according to me, is a pretty selfish label as well.

            I agree with Thomas Hobbes’ philosophy that humans are innately selfish for one and only one reason: everything one does is for one’s benefit; even if one might be considered a true “altruist” he is not because even a “Thank-You” generates a good feeling within. Now, don’t get me wrong on this one. Being naturally selfish does not mean humans are corrupt and will always go to war. On the contrary, individuals can and most often should be good. Being good, just as John Stuart Mill argued with his “utilitarianism” approach, is being ethical, moral, and genuinely nice to many people – even if (I believe) we are always, albeit unconsciously, selfish. Nonetheless, there are copious definitions of what being good and what a good life is, and such should be taken into consideration for so much is involved. In the end, it’s going to be for my own knowledge and “good”, right?

            A lot about living is knowing, so I will classify the following paragraphs based on a few ways of knowing. To start off, I will look at the concepts of “goodness” and “good lives” based on the lenses of emotion. Carol Gilligan defined morality and “goodness” through her theory of ‘ethics of care,’ which states that humans should tend their interests to the interests of others. With regards to emotion, her philosophy ties in with empathy and with reciprocity – if you do good deeds to others they will do good deeds back. Furthermore, she believes humans depend on other humans to successfully achieve their goals (which might be considered a way of achieving happiness). Likewise, along with John Stuart Mill, Bentham had approached his philosophy with utilitarianism. One’s acts, deeds, and morals, according to this concept, are entirely linked to the greatest emotional concern. Therefore, one might become happy with someone else’s deeds.

            Although emotion is fundamentally linked with perception, I believe it should be considered a different category. As I was thinking about this way of knowing, I came to the conclusion that human nature and our natural beliefs come from our schemas and perceptions.  For Socrates, self-knowledge is sufficient enough to lead one to a good life. In turn, self-knowledge teaches us virtue, which also makes us become morally good and happy. John Locke, quite similarly, based his ethical theories under the belief that humans are always seeking natural goodness and happiness. The goodness and happiness subsequently lead to cooperation and general welfare – one perspective on what might be a good life.  On the other hand, Jean Paul-Sartre had a mindset similar to my own; there can be no universal set of morals because humans have free will and are responsible for every decision they make and every feeling they sprout. Moreover, moral decisions are based on the individual basis, which once again brings me back to Hobbes’ idea of selfishness.

            Finally, I will also look at the sciences as another way of looking at goodness and having a good life. On the one hand, if we take into consideration the social sciences, we might reach the following (endless) conclusions: having a good life is when one is psychologically stable; having a good life is when one is economically comfortable; having a good life is when one finds himself at home at his particular society; having a good life is when one is ethical; inter alia. However, the natural sciences approach can be entirely different. Having a good life might be biologically defined as when humans are holders of magnificent genes, either physical or intellectual, with the capability of making them perform at different areas with greater aptitude.

            Looking back at what most philosophers I chose to write about argued, having a morally good life is most often linked with happiness. Now, I won’t write about what happiness is because, after I looked at the different ways’ of knowing approaches and thought a lot more about them, there really is now way to define happiness. Happiness is a feeling that I can easily recognize, that’s all I know. Sometimes, because of my schema, I know that certain things or experiences will bring me pleasure and happiness because I’ve already lived through extremely similar experiences. Nonetheless, there are a myriad of things out there that can bring me happiness and I’m still clueless as to what they might be. In the end, a good life for me is not necessarily being in the pursuit of happiness whilst being morally good to others. Having a good life is being happy. For me being happy encompasses being good to others. I can’t feel happy when I make someone sad. Even if I avenge someone (something I might’ve longed to do), I end up with a heavy conscious. However, in a corrupt society, happiness can arise from corrupt deeds – such as stealing money. Happiness can come from kicking your kindergarten bully. Happiness can come from anything; it just really depends on who you are and where you circumstantially stand. In the end, happiness (the instigator and stimulus for a good life) is like one’s reaction to a song. Or better yet, happiness depends on one’s particular interests on particular types of songs. If it makes you feel good, you feel some sort of happiness. If you feel some sort of happiness, you’re on your way to a good life. Now, just because you ignite your car with happiness doesn’t mean you’re not going to confront “unhappy generating” obstacles on your road to a good life. It really depends on how you drive your car.

            Inside my car, in the middle of a selfish and corrupt world, I am sure I am living a good life. But I don’t know about the car behind me… Therefore, is it possible to live a good life in a corrupt society? Absolutely. Is it probable? It depends. Is it common? I have no idea.