Living a Good Life in a Corrupt Society

RenataSayão
Block 5 TOK

Ms. Hunt

October 7, 2013

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

            Before jumping head first in this question, it’s important to define what the terms “good life” and “corrupt society” are. For the purposes of this answer, a “good life” is one that is marked by freedom and happiness. A “corrupt society” is one where the members show a willingness to act dishonestly in return for personal gain. While my first reaction to the question was that it obviously is still possible to live a good life in such a society, an answer extrapolated from my personal experience living under a corrupt government and still considering myself very happy, thinking about it from a sociological perspective and from a philosophical standpoint made this seemingly black-or-white question very gray.

            From the lenses of a sociologist, if the members of the society are corrupt, soon enough even those who try living a good life will act in a corrupt manner. This can be deduced through the conclusions of a study led by Stanley Milgram, which tested whether people would give in to social pressure by obeying an instructor and electrocuting someone else. The study, commonly known as the Milgram Obedience Studies, concluded that social pressure brings around 65% of people to do things they would usually not agree to doing. Given this knowledge about human behavior in social contexts, if a society is corrupt, there is a big chance that even those who try living a “good” life, who feel content acting according to his or her moral “code”, will become corrupt because of social pressures. Through this perspective, it is not possible to live a good life in a corrupt society because at some point those who try to live a good life will give in to corruption. On the other hand, one could argue that living a good life in a corrupt society is still possible because if everyone is acting in a “corrupt” way, then it no longer becomes corrupt because it is adopted in everyone’s moral codes and is therefore not “dishonest”. Take as an example the Asch Conformity Experiments, conducted by Solomon Asch in the 1950’s to test to what extent power of conformity in groups of people impacted their answers to obvious and straightforward questions. He concluded that one third of his subjects answered the same wrong answers as his confederates, demonstrating a human tendency to accept answers as correct because others say it is correct, not because they perceive it to be true. If this is the case, then in a society like this if people act dishonestly and argue that it is not dishonest, or that it is not corrupt, then others will conform and accept those actions as tolerable or even acceptable. If everyone adopts the same outlook on an action, it is no longer corrupt because it’s not dishonest (remember, the definition of corrupt for this question was demonstrating a willingness to act dishonestly in return for personal gain). In this way, even those who try living a good life will say that corruption is tolerable or even acceptable. Henceforth, it is not possible to live happily in a corrupt society because people’s views of corruption will change.

            John Stuart Mill was a 19^th century philosopher and writer, who coined the term “utilitarianism” and developed said theory that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good. Linking back to the question, if a person lives in a corrupt society and is still able to act according to his or her moral code (what he or she feels is correct), then he or she will be happy and therefore can live a good life, regardless of the social context. However, there is also the possibility that he or she will be bothered by the corruption in that society, and therefore cannot live a good life because he or she will never be completely happy or satisfied. In this way, it depends on the person and the person’s interaction with his or her social context. On another note, 17^th century philosopher John Locke defined “the self” or the essence of human beings as “that conscious thinking thing which is sensible or conscious of pleasure and pain, capable of happiness or misery, and so is concerned for itself, as far as that consciousness extends”. Through his moral philosophy, humans are naturally selfish, and thus acting in a corrupt manner is natural. Thus, those who live a good life will already live in a corrupt manner, because they will always be pursuing those things that make them happy (both material and abstract things). In this way, living in a corrupt society will give its members the freedom to act according to their natural instincts: selfishly, and will thus live a good life because they will always be looking for whatever makes them happy and will not be punished or frowned upon by seeking things that make them happy.

            It’s very hard to reach one definite answer. What can be synthesized by these different viewpoints is that, although it would be very difficult to live in a corrupt society without slipping into that same behavior, corruption might not be entirely bad. Depending on who is judging the actions being taken, and how natural it is considered for humans to act in pursuit of personal gain, it might not be “corrupt” in a negative sense but really just a matter of independence and seeking happiness. In the end, I still hold that it is possible to live a “good life” in a corrupt society, to be happy in a corrupt society, because of the need to conform (adaptation to different cultures and environments), as illustrated and concluded by Solomon Asch, in addition to the convincing “utilitarian” philosophy which states that the “good moral” is one that produces the best outcome, since the best outcome for the self is achieved or pursued when one acts in a corrupt way. Finally, John Locke’s idea of the human essence really tipped over the scales and convinced me that corruption is almost intrinsic to humans and that a corrupt society would give more liberty for humans to seek the things that make them happy. Henceforth, with each person seeking their own means of finding happiness, more people can achieve a “good life”. Interestingly enough, this conclusion links back to utilitarianism: the more people can reach a “good life”, the more “correct” it is.