Annie Groth
Ms. Hunt
IB TOK II
9 October 2013
Ethics Blog
Prompt: Is it possible to live a
good life in a corrupt society?
If
morality in no way depends on society and instead on individual decisions then
it is possible to live a good life in a corrupt society. That would be the case
though if we assume moral decisions are good decisions that would consequently
lead to a good life. This premise though is like all others which ethics
derives from in the sense it is flawed, such that it can be questioned to a
great extent. However, for the sake of answering the prompt somehow, a
distinction must be made. So, to rephrase the question with the assumed
definition of good being moral, we arrive at the inquiry of is it possible
to live a moral life in a corrupt society?
Though there are various approaches by
different philosophers of what is morality many of them can agree a moral decision
is made from each person, even if that decision had external influences on it.
Even Lawrence Kohlberg, for example, argued that in the pre-conventional stage
of morality rules set by society are what distinguish what is right. However,
ultimately deciding to follow these rules is an individual decision. That is
why if a society was corrupt and had completely different values than what we
have today it would influence a person’s goodness to a certain extent, but not
past the point of individual choice.
Another way to look at this question is
whether to consider corrupt good or not. If being corrupt is good then the
question is easily answered. One could consider maybe being corrupt as
deceiving others and doing what is best for one’s self. This way of thinking is
awfully similar to Machiavelli’s philosophy in which he believed the ethical
decision to make was what would give that person the most benefit, independent
of others. This way, a person could lead a good life based on such decisions
and would also live in a society which valued and understood that being corrupt
was just a natural consequence of doing what is in your best interest.
Besides relying on specific ethical
philosophers to help answer this question, the area of history is also valuable
in providing examples of how such a society would work. There are examples in
history of corrupt societies, such as the case with the Portuguese and Spanish
explorers of the 16th century. The Portuguese bandeirantes and Spanish conquistadores
travelled through unknown wilderness in their search for gold. The society
they elaborated can be directly compared to a corrupt society as it did not
have laws or regulations—the law was what the captain decided. The explorers
were also corrupt in the way they dealt with the indigenous people, trading
low-value objects like broken mirrors and beads for the valuable gold. They
were without a doubt thinking of their own interests. Yet it could be argued
such explorers led a good life. Some of them found many tons of gold and
conquered new land. However, it is doubtful whether or not the Spanish and
Portuguese had a corrupt society because they were already corrupt. This way,
they would still be leading a good life but not because they were free to make
their own decisions in this barbaric place but maybe because they were the
barbarians.
To lead a good life an individual must
arrive at his own choices of what is ethically or morally preferred. How they
justify what exactly is morality
could be an endless journey, but with certain limitations and premises answers
start to appear. For example, society, like Kohlberg believed, has rules in the
pre-conventional stage to show individuals what is right. Ultimately a corrupt
society could have its own ideas on what is moral and teach it to its members.
However, Machiavelli believed what was right came from self-interest, such that
its members would already be corrupt. Finally, history shows us good lives are
possible in corrupt societies to some extent. The concept of goodness and
morality then can be affected by a corrupt society, but it is still possible to
live a good life in such a circumstance if goodness comes from self-knowledge.
Annie, I liked your approach to the question from the lens of individual good. Instead of expanding from the individual in a corrupt society, you narrowed your response to the individual itself and how he/she affects a society in his/her own way. I wasn't completely sure what the justification for your argument that "being corrupt is good." What would be an example of that, either something you've observed yourself or something else you might have come across? Connecting your post to the history unit was successful to your claims, because you showed, through the example of a barbaric society vs. the barbarian, that the idea of good in a corrupt society will change. Lastly, I liked your last sentence because adding a little twist to the idea of individuality and saying "self-knowledge" was interesting because you went back to your initial premise and further hinted your thoughts only with that final word.
ReplyDelete