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

This question is slightly ambiguous due to the fact that there is no objective definition as to what a "good life" is. I personally think there are two ways to look at it: one that is free of economic problems--a comfortable, satisfied life--or one defined by happiness and freedom. On the other hand, a corrupt society can also have different definitions: an economically or politically corrupt one, and one that is morally unstable. Either way, I believe that in all cases, one can live a good life in a corrupt society, but really it depends on how you look at the question. If by "good life" one means the individual's good life, then I believe it is definitely possible. But if by "good life" one thinks of the general society, then definitely not.

My main starting point was the idea of utilitarianism. It states that happiness is possible if one attempts to have it. It says that if actions are useful, one can live in a happy state. Jeremy Bentham sketched a series of steps that determines the quality and quantity of pleasure, known as the felicific calculus. He said that to determine if an action is right and will lead to happiness, we have to look at the intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity and extent of the pleasure as a consequence of the action. In a corrupt society, though GENERAL happiness can be rare, this method can be applied to the INDIVIDUAL. For example, if someone decides to act to their own advantage, through the felicific calculus one can say that there will be sufficient pleasure after that action, which means happiness, especially if the action was successful. The action itself may also have nothing to do with the corrupt society, but rather focus within an individual's personal life, like family. It could easily lead to happiness. Basically, this shows that is IS possible to live a good life anywhere.

Another way to look at it is if we as individuals CHOOSE to live a good life. In other words, like Daoism would support, if we just follow "the way" and let life be, we can be happy. If we SEEK happiness in a natural way, not worrying about manmade stress or material things, we can find it. Thus it does not matter if there is corruption around us because the way our inner self is living is free of corruption, and that is what matters. Locke would agree with this--we need to focus on ourselves. One can live a comfortable life if they are concerned with their own happiness. General happiness is not required for one individual to live a good life, which is what I think the question suggests.

However, DO we, in our society, live a good life in a corrupt society? John Stuart Mill's idea of the Greatness Happiness Principle distorts the thought above. This principle states that the greater the number of people who are satisfied with pleasure, the more morally correct is the action, or the happier a society is. However, a corrupt society does not have general happiness because it is impossible for EVERYONE to be happy. This means that your life cannot be considered good if the people around you aren't happy too. As a result, Mill would say there cannot be good life in corruption. Adding on to the idea of a good life being impossible in an unfair society, let's think about Plato's thoughts. He did believe in eudaimonia and states that happiness is essential in human existence, which would fit with the definition of "good life". Yet he believed that happiness could only be achieved through justice, which goes against the question being asked. People can only live a moral life and understand the value of truth and happiness if they seek and find the true form of justice. And of course there is no justice in a corrupt society, where one may take unfair advantage over the others.

Basically, I cannot come up with a definite answer to the question due to how complex its different parts are. My definition for "good life" may be different from someone else's, and thus it depends on how you look at the question. However, my first instinct was that it IS possible for someone to lead a good, comfortable life in a corrupt society if they try. If looked at it from the idea of two parallel systems (reason and compassion), each one would give you a different answer. The reasoning system and ideas would say that it is not possible because a general happiness should be found for life to be considered good, but not everyone is happy in a corrupt society. The compassion system would say that it IS possible if each individual seeks internal good life and tries to help everyone else, like Aristotle believed was the way towards happiness.