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

Paula Soares

We can analyze this question looking at two quite different philosophers and what how differing moral and ethics codes would fit with this statement. Let us choose two philosophers who have different foci guiding their ideas about morality and ethics, such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Buddha. We will be essentially comparing and contrasting existentialism with Buddhism around the question of whether it is possible to live a good life in a corrupt society. Sartre would describe a ‘good life’ as one devoid of not making choices, in which the individual assumes his/her inherit freedom and actively makes choices based not solely on external conditions. He would describe a ‘corrupt society’ as one in which individuals are not encouraged to have complete freedom of choice, but are both directly and indirectly externally influenced and limited in their personal choices (premise: all choices are personal since all individuals have complete freedom to choose whatever they want). Buddha, on the other hand, would say that a ‘good life’ is one devoid of suffering, one in which the individual has reached Enlightenment. However, there is no ‘good’ or ‘bad’ in Buddhism, those are logical constructions and have no inherit meaning. However, for the sake of argument, a ‘good life’ may be the same as Enlightenment. A ‘corrupt society’ would be again not something inherently ‘bad.’ It could be interpreted in Buddhism as a society that contains a lot of suffering (i.e. from cultural materialism that leads to profound attachments throughout the population).

            Sartre emphasizes the idea of unconditional freedom of choice of the individual in his works, so he would quickly answer ‘Yes, it is possible to live a good life, the conscious individual can choose what kind of life he/she will live.’ (Note: good = free). The individual, when under the illusion of not having a choice in a certain situation, is described by Sartre as being in a state of Nothingness. When the individual is conscious of the undeniable freedom of choice granted to every individual, he/she is in a state of Being. When in Nothingness, an individual may fall under the false pretense that his/her actions should be made according to and depending on external conditions. If this were the case, then the given external condition of a corrupt society would infiltrate the decision of the individual, thus mirroring its corruption and lack of freedom onto the individual herself/himself. Therefore, the assumption is that the corrupt society must have values and morals of a limited freedom of choice. If the society had values and morals that emphasized total freedom of choice for individuals, much like Sartre, what difference would it make if the individual is in a state of Being or of Nothingness? If on the state of Being, whatever society or external condition present would not affect the individual’s consciousness of unlimited freedom of choice. If in the state of Nothingness, the individual would use external conditions to mold their decisions, and if he/she were in a society of conscious unlimited freedom of choice, they would be technically mirroring unlimited freedom of choice, thus transferring to the state of Being. But in a corrupt society, the individual would unfortunately not get away with the Nothingness à Being cycle of a free society. The individual would have to be in a state of Being in order to life a good (free) life in a corrupt (not free) society. In fact, an individual could live a good (free) life in any society if they are living on the state of Being.

            Now let’s take a look at this question from a Buddhist point of view. WWBD (What Would Buddha Do?). Is it possible to live a good life (life without suffering) in a corrupt society (society with a lot of suffering)? Technically, according to the four Noble Truths, all suffering has a cause, and all suffering can end, so yes. However, let’s look at how the suffering would end exactly. Regardless of the age, gender, conditions, etc. of an individual, if they follow the Eightfold Noble Path of Buddhism with discipline and the right mindset, they may reach enlightenment and the end of suffering. Let’s look at what suffering encompasses: it is made up of sentiments of suffering, anxiety, stress, discontentment, unsatisfactoriness and others. Most of these arise from attachment. In a corrupt culture that has a lot of suffering, there would be a lot of attachment (since attachment leads to suffering). If an individual is deeply immersed in a very materialistic and attachment-based society, their brain would be affected by that particular environment that contains suffering. Here, the nature vs. nurture question comes into play. The Buddha did not think anatomically of the brain, the only aspect of the brain that mattered at his time of teaching was that the brain could reason, and the brain could be conscious and aware (in order to achieve the end of suffering). However, consciousness and awareness are not spiritual concepts but rather very biological; they arise from the capacity of brain functions and the complex way our brain works. For example, at Tufts, a group of psychiatrists found that individuals from different cultures have different brain responses to visual input. American and Japanese individual’s brain had different MRI readings when looking at the same images, specifically one that showed an authoritative human posture and one with a submissive human posture. This shows how immersion different cultures biologically alter the brain, and thus it would not be the same for an individual in a non-attachment society to live a good life as it would for an individual living in a very attachment-based society. The fact that their brains would be wired differently already affects one of the most founding and important principals leading to the end of suffering: consciousness and awareness of being.

            We can see that, when we only look at the different philosopher’s ethical and moral precepts, this question can be answered quite straightforwardly. However, when we start unpacking the answers and placing it in realistic and complex situations, they may prove to be not so solid, probably due to the fact that reality doesn’t quite fit into a nice little box of premises and logical arguments, or even faith sometimes. This is because everything is infinite. Especially real things.