[ttonkytonk]

>Things simply don't work like this on an individual level - you can be the biggest arsehole in the village and still potentially live a happy, meaningful life. Or live in virtue and miserable.

This is pretty much the complaint of Socrates' interlocutors in The Republic.

Socrates (or Plato) might object that "being the biggest arsehole" would entail security concerns that would hinder happiness.

They may also object to such a life being meaningful if it involves indulging one's desires to the detriment of the rest of the villagers. Don't the villagers make their happiness possible? Will their arseholiness help sustain what makes human life meaningful into perpetuity, or set the stage for its destruction?