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

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

Well, let me take you on an adventure through the "swamp" that awaits us.
What exactly is good?
According to the online dictionary the word good means, "that which is morally right."
This question is particularly interesting because the second that we think we have made our lives easier by defining the word good the question itself becomes even more difficult.

What defines that which is "morally right"? It is almost an impossible task to answer such a question due to the fact that it varies for every individual or group of individuals. John Stuart Mill, the English philosopher, concluded that it was every human's sole desire to be happy. Working off this premise we can then justify "morally right" as something that makes us happy, whatever that may be. The problem with this theory is once again that the idea of happiness varies for every individual. It should also be noted that Mill also believed that a good act was one that did not involve pain, which is also improbable because in receiving or taking something someone loses. The assumption could be made that there are people who would be happy in losing something as long as someone else gains, but that isn't a Universal concept and would contradict the view of the next philosopher I am mentioning, John Locke.  John Locke believed that human nature enabled men to be selfish. When Locke defined the "self" he said that the self would be concerned with his or herself and whatever that encompassed. By following this train of thought it seems quite evident that Mill's theory of happiness would not function simply because of the way that human nature is set up to be. If we look at both philosophies from an even broader point of view it can be argued that Mill's philosophy follows under that of Locke's. If doing something that makes us happy is our instinct than it is a selfish action because we are doing it for our own personal gain. How could we therefore do something "morally right" if our main preoccupation is ourselves? This question becomes even more difficult once we take the idea of living in a corrupt society into account.

According to C.S. Lewis, the English novelist, everyone is born with a "moral code" and that code must not be broken. The code is based off our own virtues and so we should treat others accordingly. This philosophy serves as a positive because it tries to give structure to the concept of what is "morally right," but it doesn't give us a clear definition as to what that would be specifically. The other problem with this idea is what if one's values are skewed because of the place and or way that you have been raised? Even by applying the Golden Rule, treating others the way you would like to be treated, it would be problematic because one's standards and values in society can change depending on the society itself. The other side of this argument is of course the philosophy of the French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre. Sartre believed that each individual is free to make a conscious decision as to what is morally right or wrong. Going off this idea we can eliminate the idea that society is corrupt, but we are once again faced with Locke's theory of human nature being naturally selfish. If human nature allows us to be selfish, then that justifies the corruption of the society itself, and so our moral code would be corrupt because the government that regulates the actions of society would be corrupted in itself.

Now, let's completely forget about the philosophers stated above and look at this problem from a "logical" point of view. If one is living in a corrupted or non-corrupted society essentially it does not matter. What is important about the society itself is that it will have norms under which people will usually abide by. If an individual's actions are in sync and relevant with the norms of everyday society or better yet reality, then they are living a good life from the point of view of the society itself. Since the concept of "morally right" is subjective there needs to be a structured base under which one can be judged on their actions. In our own realities we consider acts that are "morally right" to either abide by what is expected of us from society or even try to exceed those expectations. In doing this we are pleasing the standards of our society and furthermore our own standards. There is of course a major issue with this concept of thinking. What if you are placed in a society outside of your own and the actions and concepts that you are accustomed to are flipped upside down? Even by committing a "morally right" action it could be considered something negative depending on the norms of the new society that you have now entered. This causes for us to essentially erase everything that we've known and have us play the role of kindergardeners again, which is to observe and try to mirror those actions that are approved of within the new society.

It seems as if the question at hand has no answer because the answer itself keeps changing the moment that an answer presents itself. The closest one can get to a pleasing answer is yes, but one must clarify that this answer only applies if the society being used in the model never changes and that the individual or individuals themselves don't change either.

"You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty."
Mahatma Gandhi