The Good Place on NBC

it had to happen sooner or later

it’s the ilx rule of comedy discussions

As a moral philosopher, he would recognize that this means consequentialism is the truth.

Chidi's defining characteristic is that he is completely incapable of making a decision ever about anything, and this characteristic has ruined his chances of getting to the Good Place. It makes perfect sense that he would be incapable of teaching anyone else the right thing except by accident.

I think that's similar to what I was getting at above wrt s2, in my untrained-in-philosophy way, except that I see it as a strength, or at least an interesting perspective:

if we were to know for a fact that there is an afterlife with heaven and hell and immortal omniscient beings who have some kind of absolute system of ethical judgment, what exactly would be the value of studying "human ethics"? The show seems to take the position that human ethics still has its own independent value that the immortal could fail to understand, that these can still [ be ] moral questions regardless of whether you would end up in heaven or hell, which seems radically humanist or something. Curious what j. thought.

― No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Friday, October 20, 2017 8:51 AM (two months ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

(I'd ask my philosopher half but she's still on s1.)

― No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Friday, October 20, 2017 8:52 AM (two months ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'm assuming where they're going with it is that the Danson character will eventually rebel against the unethical system he's always served.

― a serious and fascinating fartist (Simon H.), Friday, October 20, 2017 9:03 AM (two months ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

The implications of that are p radical imo!: human inquiry can lead to a moral knowledge and system of ethics that are superior to those of heaven and hell, with the potential to revolutionize the afterlife. Basically, a dogmatic religion can still be wrong even if it is factually accurate.

― No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Friday, October 20, 2017 9:12 AM (two months ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

But, yeah, I guess in the context of s1, trishyb OTM.

Maybe heaven is wrong about what is right or wrong. It's a fairly severe answer to the Euthyphro dilemma, I guess.

There are other things like that, but it's best to suspend disbelief (ted danson's character often seems not to know things you would expect someone who has read every book to know)

Sund4r otm. Also, in that first introduction video, Michael claims that when someone ran a red light at night, even if nobody noticed, it gave them minus points. Or something like that. The point is: The points seem more deontological in nature.

I've got my own issues with this show (and otherwise) but the inconsistency that bugs me the most may be Jason, who is so stupid and innocent and guileless it seems unfair to punish him any more than it would be fair to send small children to the bad place. Even when he means ill in flashbacks he never seems particularly bad or mean. Just ... rock stupid, which is determined at birth.

I will say, considering what the show has done so far, it's only limited by its ambitions. For example, there could be a reveal that the entire scenario is there to test Michael. Or that Jason really is a silent Buddhist monk, and this is all taking place in his subconscious as he wrestles with morality. Or that Chidi is an engineer who tried to defect back to Earth and is being punished. And so on. Hence the most fun I have had with this show has been viewing it as a cute distraction and a modest deconstruction of sitcom tropes, not some even semi-serious dive into philosophy.

I mean, he was an adult who mostly lived off crime, even if he was incompetent as a criminal. I don't really see it as inconsistent with the rest of the Good Place/Bad Place's moral framework that he would be punished. xp

yeah, but he is functionally special needs. it's not fair to punish someone too ignorant to realize what they're doing is bad.

I guess. I haven't really seen much to suggest that the system makes many allowances for compassionate reasons. It's pretty rigid and harsh. Eleanor notes its harshness fairly early on.

"Eleanor notes its unfairness..." - i.e. I agree that it's unfair (which is why we sympathize with the characters who are rebelling against it) but not that it's inconsistent.

When they finally get to the Good Place they're going to find it insufferable.

Eleanor - everyone here is so self-righteous/boring/annoying
Chidi - I question your moral rigidity and lack of self-questioning on a profound philosophical level
Tahani - literally everyone here is trying to upstage me
Jason - OK Jason will probably love it

feel like there are more twists to come. idk if this is the one but in certain Jewish traditions "hell" is a place where you work out the things that plagued you [ethically] in your life in order to prepare you for "the good place." what if the bad place isn't really a bad place at all but a place for ppl (and maybe even demons) to make themselves better in order to move on to the better place. why would a perfect system otherwise allow this much going off the rails? these ppl can create neighborhoods from nothingness and stride the void but they don't know that michael has reset the simulation hundreds of times? they have no systems in place to monitor that kind of thing? or more likely this is all a part of a greater plan?

someone behind the curtain behind the curtain, as it were

It kinda seems to me that a lot of these criticisms are based on an understanding of religion that the show has never actively supported and in some cases directly criticized. Yeah, the system is definitely unfair when it sends Jason to the bad place, and yeah, the system is blind to it's own problems, but that seems of a piece with the idea of the spiritual structure as just some mindless bureaucracy, where everything doesn't happen for a good reason, but just because it always has. It's kinda Kafkaesque.

And Michael is the great destroyer, not because he wanted to, but just because he tried to innovate. When injected with the possibility that things could actually be different, the whole system falls apart.

Fred OTM, tbh

once it was revealed that the entire premise of the show was based on lies and deception, frankly all logic went out the window. which is fine. but we have no idea what is really going on at any time.

Yep. And what does that mean for a show about religion ;)

it's metaphysical but it is not religious imo in any specific or even general sense.

I'd argue it's the other way around. There's very little that's actually about metaphysics, while there's a whole lot about organized bureaucracies like religions. That is exactly my point, Josh.

well, there are arguments about what is good and what is bad, but you can have those arguments without religion. especially given this show's tradition of deception, we still can't know for certain what is even going on or why.

Unless I suppose one considers religion just a system of morality predicated on rewards and punishment, I guess, in which case, sure, you could say it's generically about "religion." Just not any specific religion and without and specific indicators of religion. Regardless, I think it gives the show too much credit as anything beyond maybe a very shallow parody of religion. That is, you can say "it makes no sense, therefore ... religion!" but eh.

well, there are arguments about what is good and what is bad, but you can have those arguments without religion.

This isn't metaphysics, though? Right?

Unless I suppose one considers religion just a system of morality predicated on rewards and punishment,

Rewards and punishments that are found in an afterlife (that is even structured, in a system loosely reminiscent of at least one popular and influential extant tradition of religious belief, into a 'good place' and a 'bad place' [where souls are tortured for eternity])? Overseen by omniscient immortal beings? How is this not commenting on religion?

taking this show too seriously is a) natural b) lamentable c) obvious d) intended e) all of the above

I agree! But here we are.

xpost Because the show has pulled the rug out enough times that we're almost in Philip K. Dick territory. Are their flashbacks real? Is this place real? Is the good place real? Is this the afterlife? And so on. Do any of these people really know how they died, or if they died, or only what they were told by Michael? Who is a liar enlisted to punish them? And is Michael really omniscient? Not by any standard of the word. Etc.

xpost I have a terrible grounding in philosophy, but I suppose it could be argued whether fundamentals of good and evil are essential facets of existence, and whether there could be a society without either. Or a point of society. Or whether society debates good vs. evil because that is the will of the creator/god, or if we invented god then did we also invent good and evil, and so on. Dunno if that's metaphysical.

f) fun!

Yeah, I'll acknowledge that, once they kept going after the s1 finale, a lot does end up up in the air. Speaking of which, I was really hoping for the balloon to work.
xp

Yeah, I'll acknowledge that, once they kept going after the s1 finale, a lot does end up up in the air.

It's kind of a testament to the show's strength that I still find it compelling viewing after this.

I honestly don't really think it's taking a comedy show too seriously to discuss its philosophical statements when the show itself centres around characters studying ethics and has devoted an episode to taking apart an analytical philosophy thought experiment. Not like we're doing this on a Modern Family thread.

wait... this is the bad place

I enjoyed the computer animation deconstructions of the fake world in the last episode.

idk i think sooner rather than later the show will start playing it straight. the most recent episode proved that the true core of the show is the relationships between the characters. the good place doesn't need constant twists to keep afloat.

all the interviews i've seen with michael schur seems to show that he is aware of the "too many twists" problem and that the true goings-on will be less obfuscated

At this point it's hard to picture a version of the show that's not always writing itself out of corners and reinventing itself. I love it but maybe it would benefit by not running for too many seasons?

There's no God in the show - it's a secular cartoon idea of the afterlife. Which is fine. I was just thinking about this because the only other person I know who watches it was interrogating me about what religions believe, which is the wrong approach.

I hope they keep the bad place simple - it's the kind of thing that can go very wrong with bad special effects.

was this on last week? my dvr didn't record it and I didn't see it on demand either.

all of you are having a fabulous discussion, but hey that bit with eleanor roasting tahani lol

lol

also: Jason’s favorite versions: 69...420....

I like how Eleanor gave him props for that.

i lol'd at that and felt like a child

i loled at that bcz i *am* a child :D

In defense of what I said about Chidi's inexplicable approach to teaching Eleanor--

His indecision is irrelevant. He's only shown to be indecisive between comparably reasonable options. Teaching Eleanor about moral philosophies that bear little resemblance to the one that she's going to be judged by is not reasonable at all, and a moral philosophy professor would know that.

The ideas that the afterlife might have the wrong moral standards, and that there could be value in human philosophy in any case, are also irrelevant to what I'm saying. Chidi isn't teaching Eleanor because he thinks human moral philosophy contains truths that the afterlife doesn't recognize, or because he thinks it's valuable in itself. He's trying to save her from hell. That means figuring out how Eleanor can be good by the standard of the afterlife, which Chidi himself says operates on an "infallible formula". But he goes about this in a way that makes no sense for his character.

They could have fixed most of this very easily, just by (1) having the Good Place orientation video NOT say that people are assigned on the basis of the quantifiable goodness and badness of their actions, but instead be more vague about it, and (2) having some character ask Michael or Janet to clarify how these assessments are made, and be told that this is one of the things (along with what goes on the Bad Place) that can't be revealed. That would leave Chidi to have to guess, and then it would make sense that he tries to cover his bases by teaching Eleanor about a bunch of different approaches to ethics.*

Sund4r otm. Also, in that first introduction video, Michael claims that when someone ran a red light at night, even if nobody noticed, it gave them minus points. Or something like that. The point is: The points seem more deontological in nature.

― Frederik B, Tuesday, January 16, 2018 4:36 AM (fourteen hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

A moral system where the value of every action is determined entirely by the numerical amount of goodness or badness that it contributes to the world is consequentialist, and not deontological. This is true even if the system says that breaking rules is bad.

*This still wouldn't explain why he has Eleanor learn about Hume on personal identity, nor why he would assign the entire Treatise of Human Nature.

It's not consequentialist, though, since it doesn't seem to take into account the consequences of their actions. Running a red light brings an abstract amount of good or bad into the world, no matter the circumstances. That is not consequentialism.

The orientation video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut0ai4s4mjU

Consequentialism says that the value of an action is determined by its consequences. The orientation video says that the moral value of every action is determined by the amount of good or bad that goes into the universe as a result. That seems consequentialist to me.

Deontological theories are the ones that set absolute prohibitions on performing or abstaining from certain actions, irrespective of consequences. Assigning moral point values to actions is a non-deontological move.