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

Mariana Lepecki

IB TOK—Hunt

Ethics Blog Post

8/10/2013

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

One of the first things that struck me when reading this question was the notion of “corruption” and “good life;” for even though I understand what these concepts mean, I now realize that I don’t really have a clear definition for each. Therefore, before actually tackling the question at hand, I must first try to better comprehend these concepts.

 Let’s start with corruption. As someone who has been accustomed to hearing about instances of corruption in the news, my schema has always categorized it as an event when someone steals money (that is usually public) for their own benefit, instead of allowing it to be used for its intended purpose. Nevertheless, after reflecting on this concept a little more, I believe that my previous perception was limited, for the term as a whole can encompass many other characteristics other than stealing. For example, according to Oxford Dictionary, corruption can be defined as “dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery” (“Corruption”). Though my definition didn’t deviate too much from this explanation, the dictionary did bring out an important concept that I hadn’t thought of before: dishonesty. If I were to look this definition of corruption through Mortimer Adler’s perspective on moral philosophy, then I could affirm that this is a morally bad concept, for a good action can only be made by a virtuous person (someone who is temperate, honest, brave and just).

However, if I were to look at corruption by referencing Nietzsche’s theory of “slave morality” and “master morality,” then I could argue that corruption follows the natural order of things, for “those in power” are simply reaffirming their advantage over those that do not ("Master–slave Morality") . According to the philosopher, “masters” are the strong willed men consider “good” to be synonymous to “strength and “power,” all of which corruption would theoretically provide them (for bribery would grant them more money and thus more power in the capitalist world). Therefore, contrary to what my schema had previously determined, corruption can also be seen as good depending on the perspective being observed.

Which leads me to my next question: what is good? What does it mean to have a good life? Well, using science as a way of knowing, I could argue that it entails being “fit” for my life—that is, being well adapted to my environment so that I could have a higher chance of passing on my genes to my offspring. But, using logic, I know that I am not always satisfied with my life when I am healthy, so there must be more things to consider than just wellbeing. Looking at Social Sciences, on the other hand, I could say that a good life is one in which I am economically stable, having sufficient money to live comfortably. Nevertheless, as Harvard Business Professor, Michael Norton, mentioned in his TED Talk “How to buy happiness,” recent studies have shown that a person who has won the lottery and a person who has lost their legs around the same time can be equally content with their lives after a year (Norton).

Therefore, there has to be more to living a good life than just health and money. According to many ethical philosophers, such as John Locke, a good life boils down to one important factor: “the inevitable pursuit of happiness.” So, taking into consideration this search for happiness as a key component of a good life, is it possible to live a “good life” in a corrupt society?

If you I take into consideration the theories of ethical philosophers Machiavelli and Epicurus, committing corruption would not impede a person from living happily. As the former argues, “people should try to get the best out of every situation regardless of others” (“Ethics Overview”). Thus, by being corrupt, these people will be fulfilling their own happiness, meaning that, according to these principles, they would be living a good life. It could be argued that Epicurus holds a similar point of view. In his philosophy, a person should be free to pursue their happiness, so if their happiness comes from dishonesty and bribery, then corruption will create a good life ("Epicureanism”).

Nevertheless, there is a major knowledge issue with these arguments. The point of view that they are taking into consideration is “framed too tightly,” for they are only looking at the benefits of corruption for the person who is actually committing it. Because of this, they only consider the happiness of one individual, rather than observing collective happiness.

If I were to apply utilitarian John Stuart Mill’s “Greatest Happiness Principle” to this context, then corruption could be seen as a factor that hinders a person’s ability to live a good life. This is because corruption, according to the definitions that I examined, entails dishonesty, bribery and theft (among other “bad” characteristics) that would theoretically not bring happiness to the majority of people involved with such action. Since Mill’s principle states that an action can only be morally good if it brings an amount of satisfaction that is proportional to the number of people involved, then corruption can’t be seen as good in this point of view.

In addition, Carol Gilligan “ethics of care” theory, though mostly directed towards women, also demonstrate a similar perspective if analyzed in a more universal sense. According to her, we must tend to our interests through the interest of others in order to transition from a selfish to an empathetic being, thus achieving happiness (“Ethics Overview”). If “ethics of care” is applied to the same context, then once again corruption can be viewed as something that will prevent people from living a good life, for if such an action exists in a society, then people won’t be happy because they will not be tending their interests through the interests of others.  

Moreover, considering Immanuel Kant’s “Categorical Imperative,” would the people who are committing corruption still continue to be happy if everyone was allowed to be corrupt?  In Kant’s views, no, because theft and deception are incompatible with the possibility of a kingdom of ends, meaning that happiness would never be reached (“Categorical Imperative”). 

The examples of these moral philosophers demonstrate how there are two ethical parallel systems that surround this question: one of reason, and one of compassion. Logically, the arguments made under the Machiavellian and Epicurean point of view were reasonable, yet they did not consider compassion. On the other hand, Mill’s utilitarian views, Gilligan’s empathy-related beliefs, and Kant’s “Categorical Imperative” point of view highly focused on compassion. Because of this, I now find myself in the middle of a large spectrum that is divided between ethical egoism and altruism. So how I am supposed to choose which side to support? Is corruption good or bad?

When living in South Africa, I came across an ancient Bantu concept known an Ubuntu. As Nelson Mandela once explained, Ubuntu means “that we are only human through the humanity of other human beings.” This concept has taught me that, anthropologically, we are highly dependent on each other in order to better understand ourselves, thus demonstrating the importance of human connection. This notion of connection is verified through other areas of knowledge, such as Science. As Neuroscientist V.S. Ramanchandran stated in his TED Talk “Neurons that Shaped a Civilization,” we are biologically “hardwired” to feel empathy due to the existence of mirror neurons (Ramanchandran). Therefore, using this idea of the importance of human connection as a premise for my argument, then it can be reasonable to place more emphasis on collective happiness as opposed to individual happiness as an attempt to settle this debate. Thus, since it was previously established that corruption did not lead to collective happiness (and that the pursuit of happiness can be seen as a definition of a good life), then it logically follows that it is mostly not possible to live a good life in a corrupt society.

Works Cited

"Categorical Imperative." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 10 Mar. 2013. Web. 09

Oct. 2013.

"Corruption." Oxford Dictionary (British & World English). N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Oct.

2013

"Epicureanism." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 10 Mar. 2013. Web. 09 Oct. 2013.

"Ethics Overview ToK Block 7." Ethics Overview ToK Block 7 - Google Drive. Ms.

Hunt, Oct. 2013. Web. 09 Oct. 2013.

"Master–slave Morality." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 10 May 2013. Web. 09

Oct. 2013.

Norton, Michael. "How to Buy Happiness." TED: Ideas worth Spreading. N.p., Nov.

2011. Web. 09 Oct. 2013.

Ramachandran, Vilayanur “The Neurons That Shaped Civilization." TED: Ideas worth

Spreading. N.p., Nov. 2009. Web. 09 Oct. 2013.