Good and Corrupt

The difficulty in answering this question comes from what we could consider a “good life”; I assume that a good life is that which leads us to happiness, which I see as a general feeling of satisfaction and joy. Corrupt, can also means different things – I’ll assume in this case it is all that is detrimental to the good (interrupt the path of happiness).

A stoic, emotionally severed businessman might consider a good life getting every deal for his company signed, despite the unhappiness it might cause to the rival. Then again, a more sensitive and caring person might feel elated after freeing a trapped bird fly to freedom. Although there are many who speak against the popular misconceptions that money or power doesn’t lead to happiness, there are still many who, in their own eyes, lead a “good life” even though they’re being corrupt. On the other hand, there’s people who live a good life, and resist the corruptness, despite it being all around them. So in that sense, yes, one can live a good life in a corrupt society, although it’s easy to deviate off the path of good.

            Dutch-Jewish philosopher Spinoza defines what is good as all which is certainly useful to us, and evil as everything which is certainly not useful to us. In the eyes of the businessman, having to bribe someone on the other side or sabotaging someone’s work for the sake of deal, is useful. The deal will bear its fruit, and he’ll reap his benefits – this benefits, in turn will prove useful in his everyday life, chipping into his own satisfaction. There is no talk of justice, because justice does not concern itself with usefulness, rather it concerns itself with right and wrong. With this instrumental view on life, the businessman is a corrupt seed affecting society, since he gets what he desires through deceit and sabotage. This becomes useful to him, in spite of causing problems for others. He may choose to ignore the fact that he is making others unhappy, just as long as his deals continue being useful to him, and giving him what he wants. In this sense, the man might think he is leading a “good life”, when in fact, he chooses to ignore how his actions corrupt the lives of others, as the consequences of his actions become useless to others.

            The sentimental man who freed the bird wasted energy for something that wasn’t necessarily useful to him – the bird’s freedom doesn’t directly affect his life, does it? And yet, this was the good thing to do because it was useful to the bird (he can now fly again and resume its life). Leading a “good life” is not all about bringing good to the individual, but onto others. The man could’ve easily walked past the bird, because its liberty doesn’t concern him or his life, and in our modern, busy society, it becomes easy to overlook actions that might be useful to others, and provide good.

            This can also be analyzed through Kant’s philosophy, through which we decide our actions with two questions. When applied to the businessman: 1) Can I rationally will that everyone act as I propose to act? If everyone got their way selfishly through deceit (interrupting others way to happiness), then we’d live in a totally corrupt society, where we’d all be trying to sabotage each other’s goals. 2) Does my actions respect the goals of human beings rather than merely using them for my own purposes? The businessman totally ignored other’s goals specifically for his very own purposes. So, in the eyes of Kant, these actions definitely don’t lead to a good life.

            If we switch and do the same with the gentle man, the answer to the first questions would be: If everyone acted like that, then happiness would be more stimulated, since we’d all be trying to help each other out, becoming useful to our paths of happiness.  Answer to number two: In my example, I used an animal, but it could easily be a human in the situation, so in that case, yes, it respects the goals of others and does not use them for their own purpose, because he does not directly gain anything from freeing the being.

            I believe it’s easy to misinterpret what a good life means by being good to one self, when in reality, it’s all about causing good to others. The businessman might’ve thought he was leading a good life because he felt good with his life (and that it was leading to happiness), despite the means through which he did this. The man who freed the bird leads a good life because he manages to cause good onto others, even though it becomes easy to do the opposite and concentrate inwardly. We live in a corrupt society because humans are becoming more concerned with themselves, and their own benefits, and less with others. A good life is that which can maintain concern for others.

WC: 834 (I know..)