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.

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

Mariana Lepecki

IB TOK—Hunt

Ethics Blog Post

8/10/2013

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

One of the first things that struck me when reading this question was the notion of “corruption” and “good life;” for even though I understand what these concepts mean, I now realize that I don’t really have a clear definition for each. Therefore, before actually tackling the question at hand, I must first try to better comprehend these concepts.

 Let’s start with corruption. As someone who has been accustomed to hearing about instances of corruption in the news, my schema has always categorized it as an event when someone steals money (that is usually public) for their own benefit, instead of allowing it to be used for its intended purpose. Nevertheless, after reflecting on this concept a little more, I believe that my previous perception was limited, for the term as a whole can encompass many other characteristics other than stealing. For example, according to Oxford Dictionary, corruption can be defined as “dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery” (“Corruption”). Though my definition didn’t deviate too much from this explanation, the dictionary did bring out an important concept that I hadn’t thought of before: dishonesty. If I were to look this definition of corruption through Mortimer Adler’s perspective on moral philosophy, then I could affirm that this is a morally bad concept, for a good action can only be made by a virtuous person (someone who is temperate, honest, brave and just).

However, if I were to look at corruption by referencing Nietzsche’s theory of “slave morality” and “master morality,” then I could argue that corruption follows the natural order of things, for “those in power” are simply reaffirming their advantage over those that do not ("Master–slave Morality") . According to the philosopher, “masters” are the strong willed men consider “good” to be synonymous to “strength and “power,” all of which corruption would theoretically provide them (for bribery would grant them more money and thus more power in the capitalist world). Therefore, contrary to what my schema had previously determined, corruption can also be seen as good depending on the perspective being observed.

Which leads me to my next question: what is good? What does it mean to have a good life? Well, using science as a way of knowing, I could argue that it entails being “fit” for my life—that is, being well adapted to my environment so that I could have a higher chance of passing on my genes to my offspring. But, using logic, I know that I am not always satisfied with my life when I am healthy, so there must be more things to consider than just wellbeing. Looking at Social Sciences, on the other hand, I could say that a good life is one in which I am economically stable, having sufficient money to live comfortably. Nevertheless, as Harvard Business Professor, Michael Norton, mentioned in his TED Talk “How to buy happiness,” recent studies have shown that a person who has won the lottery and a person who has lost their legs around the same time can be equally content with their lives after a year (Norton).

Therefore, there has to be more to living a good life than just health and money. According to many ethical philosophers, such as John Locke, a good life boils down to one important factor: “the inevitable pursuit of happiness.” So, taking into consideration this search for happiness as a key component of a good life, is it possible to live a “good life” in a corrupt society?

If you I take into consideration the theories of ethical philosophers Machiavelli and Epicurus, committing corruption would not impede a person from living happily. As the former argues, “people should try to get the best out of every situation regardless of others” (“Ethics Overview”). Thus, by being corrupt, these people will be fulfilling their own happiness, meaning that, according to these principles, they would be living a good life. It could be argued that Epicurus holds a similar point of view. In his philosophy, a person should be free to pursue their happiness, so if their happiness comes from dishonesty and bribery, then corruption will create a good life ("Epicureanism”).

Nevertheless, there is a major knowledge issue with these arguments. The point of view that they are taking into consideration is “framed too tightly,” for they are only looking at the benefits of corruption for the person who is actually committing it. Because of this, they only consider the happiness of one individual, rather than observing collective happiness.

If I were to apply utilitarian John Stuart Mill’s “Greatest Happiness Principle” to this context, then corruption could be seen as a factor that hinders a person’s ability to live a good life. This is because corruption, according to the definitions that I examined, entails dishonesty, bribery and theft (among other “bad” characteristics) that would theoretically not bring happiness to the majority of people involved with such action. Since Mill’s principle states that an action can only be morally good if it brings an amount of satisfaction that is proportional to the number of people involved, then corruption can’t be seen as good in this point of view.

In addition, Carol Gilligan “ethics of care” theory, though mostly directed towards women, also demonstrate a similar perspective if analyzed in a more universal sense. According to her, we must tend to our interests through the interest of others in order to transition from a selfish to an empathetic being, thus achieving happiness (“Ethics Overview”). If “ethics of care” is applied to the same context, then once again corruption can be viewed as something that will prevent people from living a good life, for if such an action exists in a society, then people won’t be happy because they will not be tending their interests through the interests of others.  

Moreover, considering Immanuel Kant’s “Categorical Imperative,” would the people who are committing corruption still continue to be happy if everyone was allowed to be corrupt?  In Kant’s views, no, because theft and deception are incompatible with the possibility of a kingdom of ends, meaning that happiness would never be reached (“Categorical Imperative”). 

The examples of these moral philosophers demonstrate how there are two ethical parallel systems that surround this question: one of reason, and one of compassion. Logically, the arguments made under the Machiavellian and Epicurean point of view were reasonable, yet they did not consider compassion. On the other hand, Mill’s utilitarian views, Gilligan’s empathy-related beliefs, and Kant’s “Categorical Imperative” point of view highly focused on compassion. Because of this, I now find myself in the middle of a large spectrum that is divided between ethical egoism and altruism. So how I am supposed to choose which side to support? Is corruption good or bad?

When living in South Africa, I came across an ancient Bantu concept known an Ubuntu. As Nelson Mandela once explained, Ubuntu means “that we are only human through the humanity of other human beings.” This concept has taught me that, anthropologically, we are highly dependent on each other in order to better understand ourselves, thus demonstrating the importance of human connection. This notion of connection is verified through other areas of knowledge, such as Science. As Neuroscientist V.S. Ramanchandran stated in his TED Talk “Neurons that Shaped a Civilization,” we are biologically “hardwired” to feel empathy due to the existence of mirror neurons (Ramanchandran). Therefore, using this idea of the importance of human connection as a premise for my argument, then it can be reasonable to place more emphasis on collective happiness as opposed to individual happiness as an attempt to settle this debate. Thus, since it was previously established that corruption did not lead to collective happiness (and that the pursuit of happiness can be seen as a definition of a good life), then it logically follows that it is mostly not possible to live a good life in a corrupt society.

Works Cited

"Categorical Imperative." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 10 Mar. 2013. Web. 09

Oct. 2013.

"Corruption." Oxford Dictionary (British & World English). N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Oct.

2013

"Epicureanism." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 10 Mar. 2013. Web. 09 Oct. 2013.

"Ethics Overview ToK Block 7." Ethics Overview ToK Block 7 - Google Drive. Ms.

Hunt, Oct. 2013. Web. 09 Oct. 2013.

"Master–slave Morality." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 10 May 2013. Web. 09

Oct. 2013.

Norton, Michael. "How to Buy Happiness." TED: Ideas worth Spreading. N.p., Nov.

2011. Web. 09 Oct. 2013.

Ramachandran, Vilayanur “The Neurons That Shaped Civilization." TED: Ideas worth

Spreading. N.p., Nov. 2009. Web. 09 Oct. 2013.

  

Carpe Diem, Goodness and Corruption

Carpe diem -- seize the day. Humans strive to live the best possible life, make the most out of their time on Earth as they possibly can. Yet, in a corrupt society, is that still possible? In order to answer this complex question, two vital pieces of information must be determined. The first is the definition of corruption. The Oxford American Dictionary defines corrupt as “having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain” and “evil or morally depraved”. Other definitions exist for corruption, and if those definitions were used to answer the question, a completely different answer would result. However, in order to attain an answer, at least for now, the Oxford American Dictionary’s definition will be used, acting as a premise for the argument. The second piece of information that must be determined is the definition of a “good life”, where it may be taken that either a “good life” is one lived for the social wellbeing or for personal pleasures.

In a corrupt society, people act dishonestly for personal gain. Because our normal state, according to science, is one where we are soft-wired to do good, deviating from this in any manner would lead to a “bad life”. Mirror neurons determine that the natural condition for humans is to have empathetic distress. For instance, when someone gets injured and you see it occur, the same neurons that are being activated in the person who just got hurt will be the same as the neurons in your brain, but your body will send a nerve impulse to your brain to override the mirror neurons, informing that it wasn’t you who got hurt. Our natural state, in a scientific point of view, is to show solidarity with our compassion towards others. In a corrupt society, this is still possible but people purposely distance themselves from others in order to block their brain’s natural response. An example may help with this explanation: for instance, air strikes in another nation during war allow the country to attack another without personally interfering. The barrier that is created between the two powers allows harm to be done without the activation of mirror neurons, as the person activating the air strike button is not interacting with the population affected. This, however, may be viewed as inevitably leading to a “bad life” as you are not conforming with your natural state, and philosophy helps understanding this.

Philosophy has theories for a good and virtuous life that lead to the conclusion that any deviation from the universal principles cannot lead to a “good life”.  Francisco de Vitoria, a Renaissance philosopher, argues that society must follow a specific set of international laws in order to do “good”. If those aren’t complied by, then living a “good life” is not a possibility. A corrupt society causes its members to pursue individual interests. If each member is seeking his or her own goals, then the universal social contract is not being followed. In Vitoria’s perspective, this means that a good life would not be able to be attained. Kohlberg retains a similar perspective. His stages of moral development indicate that the transition from blind egoism to mutual respect as a universal principle is what leads to personal enlightenment. It can thus be established that achieving the higher principles, where universal values are applied to personal standpoints, is when a “good life” is reached, because it is when you are able to see beyond the strict rules of society, and fuse personal interests with the interests of the society, making it one sole entity.  

There are, however, other philosophers that believe that the natural state of humans is for them to purse personal goals and pleasures, and that the state of mankind is evil. Hobbes, for instance, develops the concept that man is naturally selfish, taking corruption as a natural state. Hobbes defines “showing a willingness to act dishonestly for personal gain” as innate, making corruption a natural component of society. Because of this, following your own passions and goals regardless of other people’s interests, should lead to you to a “good” life, as it will bring you pleasure. John Dewey, another moral philosopher, also reinforces the value of following personal pleasures for a “good” life. To Dewey,  “good” life is one lived for yourself, while a “right” life, is one lived for society. Therefore, if a kleptomaniac got pleasure from stealing, then he should continue steeling if he wishes to pursue a good life, far from what Kohlberg and Vitoria would believe. The “right” life for a kleptomaniac would be to stop stealing and conform to the social contract, but if Hobbes’ perspective is taken into consideration, then the Dewey’s “right” life is not human’s natural state, and they will inevitably resort to stealing, following a “good” life.

So, can humans follow a good life even in a corrupt society? In a personal regard, I believe that this is strictly dependent on each individual’s premises of a “good life”. I may believe that I am not able to follow a “good life” because I am surrounded by corruption. However, this does not mean that I am being corrupt myself. Perhaps being surrounded by corruption makes me corrupt too… I am not doing anything to stop this corruption from happening, and thus, pursuing my own interests in leaving the status-quo so that as an individual I can continue living a “good life”, where I strive to be virtuous. For someone else, though, who does not believe that a good life is one where the individual must balance personal beliefs with the social contract (a semi-Kohlbergian philosophy) might completely disagree. Therefore, each individual must decide what to take as his or her premise, in order to evaluate whether in this corrupt society they will be able to pursue their “good lives”, or resort to existentialist basis, where there isn’t even a point to pursing a “good life”.

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

Is it possible to live a good life in a corrupt society? This is a very good question in the sense that there are many different approaches to answering it.

The way I see it, I think it depends heavily on who the person is. As we have seen in our study of the various philosophers, many people have different points of view on how to live life and the meaning of it. Even comparing two philosophers like Nietzsche and John Stuart Mill you see a major difference. Mill’s concept of Utilitarianism vs. Nietzsche's Master Morality shows how different the two men view the concept of human life.

This idea plays largely into the question except on a smaller scale. But with this idea of diversity amongst the masses in a population this helps look at society as a whole. This idea of individuality is very interesting when looking at society. So, to answer the question I think yes, it is possible to live a good life in a corrupt society. Will it be challenging? Yes. This is only because growing up or even living in a certain place and being influenced by values and cultures -- literally shapes who an individual is. But looking at the world as it is today one can see that humans are not alike in any means. Yes, we all share similar characteristics but there are all types of people in this world.

A society will always have its “loose ends” by this I mean that handful of individuals who cause trouble or seek it. But along with those negative people come a more well-rounded group of individuals. One could even say the United States government is “corrupt” because things happen that not everyone knows about or would necessarily approve of, does that mean an American cannot live a good life? Of course not! To go along with what (the majority of) the philosophers we studied in class said, I believe that humans just want to be happy and for some that means murdering, stealing, lying and cheating and for others it means the complete opposite.

As Aristotle once said: “All human actions have one or more of these seven causes: chance, nature, compulsions, habit, reason, passion, desire.” And this, once again, depends on who that person is, what they were shaped as growing up, and what they value in life. From here, they will do what they can to achieve happiness or contentment.

So to say just because a society as a whole is one thing then there is no way an individual can be different is kind of a cum hoc fallacy because the two are poorly correlated.

W.C- 446

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..)

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

In order to answer this question we need to go into the swamp as it were, but first of all I want to look at defining the question. First off, what constitutes a 'good life', is it simply a life were you are happy, a life where you are simply alive and things are mediocre, or is it something more, I like to believe that having a good life is being satisfied by life, when you wake up in the morning you open your eyes and think 'you now what, my life isn't perfect, but I'm happy.' A good life is one where you know about the imperfections around you but are still happy.

If we look at this as the definition of a good life then I definitely think that it is possible to live one in a corrupt society. We need to realize that society will always be corrupt in one way or another, a non corrupt society is impossible and would never last, it is in our nature as humans to put our lives ever so slightly above those around us. If that means going out of our way to earn couple extra buck on the sidelines then that is what we will do. It is the same reason why children cheat at school, or rebellious teenagers steal money from their parents wallets. They want to make a part of their life better for themselves be it in a small detail or something huge. Living a good life in a corrupt society means that you have come to terms with this idea, and understand that it wont change. You don't get sad or depressed when something happens because you've come to terms with it, you've learned how to see these situations in a way where you know what is happening, you understand why it is happening, you get that you can't change the world on your own, and you've gotten to the stage where it doesn't bother you anymore.

Another way I want to answer this question is by looking at an old saying, 'Ignorance is bliss'. This saying talks about how he who knows nothing, knows happiness. It is the idea that if you don't know what is happening around you, you don't now how to not be unhappy about it. And since I think I messed up that triple negative sentence I'm going to re word it. If you don't know about all the bad things that are happening around you, you can be happy because you don't know/realize how they affect you. If we look at the question through this view then we can see again how someone could live a good life in a corrupt society simply because they have no idea what is going on. However, it isn't ignorance in a bad sense such as someone walking off a cliff because they don't know the path ends, but ignorance in the sense that they may know there is corruption in society but not to the same extent as others.

So, in both these cases it would be possible for people to live a good life in a corrupt society.

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

This question is slightly ambiguous due to the fact that there is no objective definition as to what a "good life" is. I personally think there are two ways to look at it: one that is free of economic problems--a comfortable, satisfied life--or one defined by happiness and freedom. On the other hand, a corrupt society can also have different definitions: an economically or politically corrupt one, and one that is morally unstable. Either way, I believe that in all cases, one can live a good life in a corrupt society, but really it depends on how you look at the question. If by "good life" one means the individual's good life, then I believe it is definitely possible. But if by "good life" one thinks of the general society, then definitely not.

My main starting point was the idea of utilitarianism. It states that happiness is possible if one attempts to have it. It says that if actions are useful, one can live in a happy state. Jeremy Bentham sketched a series of steps that determines the quality and quantity of pleasure, known as the felicific calculus. He said that to determine if an action is right and will lead to happiness, we have to look at the intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity and extent of the pleasure as a consequence of the action. In a corrupt society, though GENERAL happiness can be rare, this method can be applied to the INDIVIDUAL. For example, if someone decides to act to their own advantage, through the felicific calculus one can say that there will be sufficient pleasure after that action, which means happiness, especially if the action was successful. The action itself may also have nothing to do with the corrupt society, but rather focus within an individual's personal life, like family. It could easily lead to happiness. Basically, this shows that is IS possible to live a good life anywhere.

Another way to look at it is if we as individuals CHOOSE to live a good life. In other words, like Daoism would support, if we just follow "the way" and let life be, we can be happy. If we SEEK happiness in a natural way, not worrying about manmade stress or material things, we can find it. Thus it does not matter if there is corruption around us because the way our inner self is living is free of corruption, and that is what matters. Locke would agree with this--we need to focus on ourselves. One can live a comfortable life if they are concerned with their own happiness. General happiness is not required for one individual to live a good life, which is what I think the question suggests.

However, DO we, in our society, live a good life in a corrupt society? John Stuart Mill's idea of the Greatness Happiness Principle distorts the thought above. This principle states that the greater the number of people who are satisfied with pleasure, the more morally correct is the action, or the happier a society is. However, a corrupt society does not have general happiness because it is impossible for EVERYONE to be happy. This means that your life cannot be considered good if the people around you aren't happy too. As a result, Mill would say there cannot be good life in corruption. Adding on to the idea of a good life being impossible in an unfair society, let's think about Plato's thoughts. He did believe in eudaimonia and states that happiness is essential in human existence, which would fit with the definition of "good life". Yet he believed that happiness could only be achieved through justice, which goes against the question being asked. People can only live a moral life and understand the value of truth and happiness if they seek and find the true form of justice. And of course there is no justice in a corrupt society, where one may take unfair advantage over the others.

Basically, I cannot come up with a definite answer to the question due to how complex its different parts are. My definition for "good life" may be different from someone else's, and thus it depends on how you look at the question. However, my first instinct was that it IS possible for someone to lead a good, comfortable life in a corrupt society if they try. If looked at it from the idea of two parallel systems (reason and compassion), each one would give you a different answer. The reasoning system and ideas would say that it is not possible because a general happiness should be found for life to be considered good, but not everyone is happy in a corrupt society. The compassion system would say that it IS possible if each individual seeks internal good life and tries to help everyone else, like Aristotle believed was the way towards happiness.