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

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

To begin answering this question, you must obviously define your terms. What do "good" and "corrupt" mean? The definition of these two words go a long way in revealing any sort of answer to this question. I want to look at the 2 philosophies that most intrigue me to answer this question.

I'll begin by considering an existentialist point of view, because that's what I studied with my philosophers and at this point in time their philosophy is very intriguing to me. To them, good and corrupt don't exist on their own. They exist only because humans attribute these characteristics to other things or situations however they see fit. What I consider a good life is not what my parents consider a good life and so on. My grandparents may consider society corrupt, while I may not, or vice versa. There is no way with this philosophy at play that goodness or corruptness could ever exist outright. This example might seem silly but I want to try doing a thought experiment. My family thinks watching football is corrupt. Football is society's favorite sport. I don't watch football. Am I a good person living a good life in a corrupt society? When you look at it this way the idea of good or bad existing seems ridiculous. And while my example seems pointless, it does relate to perception and cultural differences. Indigenous tribes have morals that are incredibly different from ours, so where is the true morality? The existentialists believe there isn't any there, and to me that makes sense. It seems like a copout in a way--there has to be an answer to everything right? An underlying truth has to exist. That is exactly what they're saying their isn't, and if we as humans would accept that, perhaps we would all be happy and no longer have to ponder ethical dilemmas. 

That seems like a copout. There has to be something. Many moral philosophers have answers. I could go down the list--the categorical imperative, the middle path of Buddhism, and so on. The most interesting to me is the idea of utilitarianism, which interests me because it has a connection to economics. In this view, what brings the greatest good to the greatest number of people is what is inherently good. Saving one life is worse than saving five lives, which we talked about in class. To a utilitarian, a corrupt society would be one in which more people are being harmed somehow than being helped or having good done for them. It's as if society's net goodness is below zero. What I like about this way of thinking is that goodness and corruptness are quantifiable things. Person A loves doing drugs. Person B hates drugs to the point that seeing someone else doing drugs brings them displeasure. Person A does drug right in front of Person B. Does being high do more for Person A's happiness than watching do Person B's displeasure? Whereas this would be hard for Sartre to ponder about, utilitarianism can find a way to measure it. You could more or less (there would never be absolute truth about people's happiness) determine the net impact of drugs on society by using the social sciences. Is it possible to reach ultimate truth of how corrupt a society is and how good an individual is? If social science determines that society is corrupt--has a negative net goodness value--and I spread kindness to everyone I know and make them happier, I am living a good life in a corrupt society. There are problems, like I said, with knowing exactly how much good an action brings, but for the sake of my argument this is more or less the truth (that I can live good in a corrupt society).

These are two really good philosophies that make life easy to live if you follow them. Yet somehow neither is satisfying. I found that none of these are that satisfying. I'm stuck in the swamp, and I have no idea how to get out! I think that existentialism is what makes more sense to me, though, as it encompasses a very ToK-ish idea. You can never have absolute knowledge. So for now, that's how I answer this question.