Is it possible to live a good (pleasurable or moral) in a corrupt society?

Before I tackle any question – especially one as complex as this one – I like to make sure the essential words in the question are explicitly defined. Clearly, “good” is the most ambiguous term that depending on its interpretation, could steer the question into entirely distinct directions – a discussion of the possibility of a pleasant life or of a moral life in a corrupt society would be completely unlike. Ignoring the fact that the current unit is ethics, making the latter interpretation of “good” the most likely intended, I am going to begin interpreting a “good” life as an enjoyable and happy existence.

Last week I sat in the car with my mother at a red light, waiting to turn left at the intersection ahead. We talked of the great Saturday morning and pleasant dinner we were having later that night with the rest of the family. We were almost at the turn when a rickety yellow 1985 Yugo pulled up to our right, disregarding the dozens of people behind us in line, and nuzzled his way into the gap in front of us. Immediately my mother’s face began to glow red, her knuckles becoming white as she gripped the wheel. I only laughed at how unbelievably conceited the man ahead of us must be to do such a thing. If they had been there, I know that my father would have had a colder condemnation in contrast to my mother’s hot anger and that my brother would have barely noticed it.

                  I think it is safe to assume that the yellow car performed a dishonest action according to most moral values around the world. But to what extent does this example of a “corrupt” action hinder me from living a “good” life? I’m sure my mother forgot at that instant about the scenic weekend morning or the family gathering that night, blinded by rage at this action of disregard. I was annoyed, of course, but at the same time pretty indifferent and somewhat amused – I remained happy as my mother grumbled for the remainder of the drive. But this is such a minute example of corruption – let’s take an extreme example, murder. A victim of an armed robbery, a friend gets killed. How does this event influence the “goodness” of our lives? It is obvious that most would be devastated, distraught and lost – but is it possible someone could be completely unfazed by such an event? The same way I essentially felt about the car cutting in front of us? What about genocide, torture, rape, slavery?

What I believe is that people have different thresholds for their tolerance to corruption. Some of these thresholds are universal – the vast majority of people will not tolerate genocide. And so while the level of corruption of society is below such thresholds, I believe that yes, it is in general possible to live a pleasant life. But as soon as genocide and rape and slavery become the norm, which most have no tolerance for, a pleasant life for most is very unlikely. I know this may sound ridiculously obvious, but the example of genocide is a clear threshold – think of blurrier situations where some have zero tolerance for and others address as acceptable, such as manslaughter or abortion. It is in these situations people have different thresholds of tolerance. While I sat indifferent to the car in front of us, my mother stared with distaste. Is my mother less likely to live a good life because she is more “corruption-sensitive?”

Having addressed the “pleasant” interpretation of good, how is the question different interpreting good as morally good? To begin, another definition needs to be made: what is considered moral? Or an even more complex question: what is a moral lifestyle? There are so many definitions, yet, I believe the “answer” to the question is wholly dependent on the definition to these terms. Since I cannot go over every interpretation of a moral action or life, I will refer to three. Carol Gilligan is one of the founders of “the ethics of care.” Those who believe in the ethics of care believe that the individual and the community are interdependent for achieving anything – every individual must be aware of the other, paying close attention to the consequence of their own actions and it’s impact on others. So assuming a corrupt society, how can one successfully achieve the ethics of care if the community you live in has no regard for you? In this example, a moral life is largely dependent on the community in which you live in, making an ethical existence impossible if one lives in a society with incongruent principles to your own – it would be like an incomplete circle. However, a more independent and “revolved around the self” definition of moral life, such as Nietzsche’s (happy birthday), is not dependent on those around you. This therefore means that yes, even if the vast majority of individuals are “corrupt,” you may still seek and achieve a moral life. More interestingly however, is how the social science of economics determines as correct behavior. It is an accepted and believed assumption in the field that humans will always act in what they believe is in their best self-interest, and that this is moral. In fact, economists praise this rule as the reason as to why society works – from a free market to efficient traffic flow – and ultimately the survival of our species. In economics class, we watched a short video on a man who bought generators from a local store and went to sell them in New Orleans after Katrina for twice their price – economists see no issue in such an action, and after many classes on the subject, I began to understand their reasoning. Regardless, let us assume such an action was undisputedly immoral, as many of us believe, and that self-interestedness is in fact the driving force behind our lives – is it ethical in itself that society, based on such “corrupt” principles, can and does function so effectively, and that we let it do so? Economics, although based on many assumptions, is a science that has rarely ever failed. Does this mean that the assumption humans are self-interested is correct? Is morally blind self-interest acceptable as long as society functions? Therefore is there no moral or immoral at all, only self-interest?

I believe the possibility of a moral life in a corrupt society stretches further than whether you believe in the ethics of care or the fact everyone acts self-interestedly. Think of the situation with the Yugo at the red light again. It is possible that my mother felt the need to do the same to the Yugo as it had done to her, despite it being against her moral principles. This incident was a small one, so it would unlikely have a change in her attitude – but assuming this happened on a daily basis with nearly every driver, it is very likely that she would soon be doing the same. This is another question that should be addressed – the extent corruption in others can influence the corruption of our own moral principles – possibly making a moral life much more difficult in a corrupt society. But I will stop extending the question here because questions such as these will keep stretching to almost infinite lengths.

The possibilities of a pleasant life and a moral life in a corrupt society seem to be very similar in the end – they are both very subjective. For a pleasant life, I believe it is to some extent dependent on your tolerance to corruption and the level of corruption considered in the society addressed in the question. For a moral life, it is largely dependent on your moral principles and your ability to ward off the influence of corruption from others in your own life. But to shatter my one thousand two hundred argument above, I would like to acknowledge that I make the assumption that there is a separation of corrupt and moral at all – we often think there are clear lines parting the two, but that in reality can often become blurry due to our differences and perspectives in certain situations. For example, while my mother glared red-faced at the yellow car ahead of us, the man at the driver’s seat could have been helplessly wondering whether he could get to the hospital on time.