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 answer this question, defining “good” is crucial. According to Aristotle, the culmination of “good” is eudemonia. He believes that happiness is a virtuous activity, rather than a state of being. To be happy, or have a good life, one must continuously act virtuously. But what does “acting virtuously,” mean? In ethics, philosophers choose their framework, or the premises in which they develop their work, and each acquire a sense of the morally correct, what is being good.

            Utilitarian philosophers, such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, believe that good equals happiness, and the only way to achieve it is through maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. Seeking the greatest happiness is their priority. But, having their scientific foundation, they made happiness almost quantitative. Happiness is the greatest goal socially, and not individually, therefore, the way to happiness is always a path that will lead to the greatest amount of happiness to the most people. So, according to an utilitarian, it is impossible to live a good life in a corrupt society, because that entails being selfish and only striving for your own good. Also, in a corrupt society, social and economic inequality run rampant, leaving a large majority poor and a small percentage rich. When calculating the total happiness, the scale is almost negative because of so much misery and little wealth, but futility. Yet, is happiness truly measurable? Is it possible to morph ethics into a quantitative science? Is everyone’s utility equal?

            Other philosophers that use reason and observation to guide their eudemonia, or lead them to justice, have a similar answer. Take philosopher Immanuel Kant, for example. He firmly believes in the categorical imperative, where you can only act in a way that you believe everyone else should. If you see something as truth or right or wrong, it should apply to everyone else. Kant would say that it is impossible to have a good life in a corrupt society, taken from the point of view form anyone in the society. Even the political leaders who are taking part of the corruption, probably for egotistical reasons of money, would not steal if their actions would be reciprocated to everyone else in the world. They only “like” the corruption because it gives them the upper hand, but if suddenly everyone else would be able to steal for their own benefit, then they would not have the upper hand. A closer example is validating a drivers’ license. Today, specifically in São Paulo, it is very common for young adults of age to buy their license rather than wait for the inefficient beurocratic system. Yet, if the categorical imperative and everyone were able to simply buy their license rather than be tested, no one would want crazy people to drive in the streets. Then again, where did his premise come from? Are these hypothetical possibilities even valid of comparison to real life? Another philosopher that falls into the category of ethics of reason is Machiavelli. He would easily say that there is no other way to be happy than to live in a corrupt society, because then it would be simple to work for you own good. Machiavelli believes that there is no place for emotion in moral dilemmas, only space for reasoning and to making yourself better off. If living in a corrupt society means more opportunities of personal success, regardless of any other human being, he would absolutely endorse living in a corrupt society.

            Existentialist philosophers have a different take on the subject. All existentialists believe in three main aspects that are the backbone of their premise: there is no external authority (God), there is no inherent meaning in the universe, and that everyone is alone in a meaningless universe. Kierkegaard, Camus, Kafka, Sartre and others think like this and establish other statements based from this set of rules. For example, Sartre believes people don’t really want the kind of freedom to create the universe. He thinks that people need to shed their hopes and be truly conscious. If this is so, living in a corrupt society would not make a difference, as long as you know that there is no meaning to it all. At the end of the day, life is empty and there is no path to follow, no happiness to achieve except for being conscious, so being in a corrupt society might even help because at least that is defined. The only “good life” for existentialists is being conscious.

            In taking an ethical stance to answer this question, the response could vary from “absolutely, there is a way to have a good life in a corrupt society,” to “corrupt societies condemn the soul.” It all depends on the frames and premises that are given. Also, very little information is disclosed in the question. Would more knowledge change any of these answers above? How can these claims be justified if their premises can’t be justified? Just because certain rules are imperative (or believed to be imperative) does it make it an ethical imperative? Can there even be an ethical imperative in the midst of so many different points of views with the same amount of proof and validity? What should be taken the most precedence? All answers are likely to be left blank, due to the lack of agreement when it comes to ethical dilemmas. So many factors can influence a process of decision-making. For me, as I am more rational, I tend to rely on ethics of reason, but sometimes I completely overrule my tendency to be logical and let my emotions override. Other times faith or intuition intrudes my thought process in deciding on an ethical dilemma, but most of my schema dictates my views of right and wrong. With so many polar schemas from completely different people, in opposite times and places of the world, is it ever possible to reach a conclusion?