The Good Place Season 2: Hot diggity dog!

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > TV IV > The Good Place Season 2: Hot diggity dog!

Regy Rusty: Apr 26, 2010

Snak posted:

Oh, I guess you're right. I was trying to remember the videotape they showed at the medium place, and I must have remembered it wrong.

The videotape showed a woman we haven't seen elsewhere as the representative of the Good Place, and Trevor as the representative of the Bad Place. Naturally they brought Trevor in earlier in the season as part of the trick, but he totally was just behaving normally instead of pretending not to be a demon like all the others were. So all indications are that the video was genuine and Trevor was just the demon selected to take part in it.

# ? Sep 28, 2017 22:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 19, 2024 23:59

Snak: Oct 10, 2005; I myself will carry you to the Gates of Valhalla...
You will ride eternal,
shiny and chrome.; Grimey Drawer

Yeah, I mistakenly remembered the video showing Michael and Trevor, which is why I thought it was fake. You are correct, and that makes more sense.

# ? Sep 28, 2017 22:21

pseudorandom name: May 6, 2007

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v-Na8Xpwzg

# ? Sep 28, 2017 22:21

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

Snak posted:

I agree with that. I still think it's possible that Michael can't understand the actual method for determining which place people go to, because he doesn't comprehend non-utilitarian ethics, and because he doesn't understand selflessness.

Edit: I don't know how the medium place could possibly have been real, since it was framed as being a compromise between the fake good place and the fake bad place.

The ethical system in the Good Place is that doing a good deed for a bad reason is not actually a good deed at all. You'd be hard-pressed to find a utilitarian who says saving a drowning child is not a good deed if the saver does it because he thinks people will like him for doing so.

# ? Sep 28, 2017 22:34

Pope Guilty: Nov 6, 2006; The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

Michael Schur said in an interview that the Medium Place and the lady living there were real, but I'm still disinclined to believe anything that we haven't heard from him or can derive from scenes between Michael and other Bad Place personnel since they're literally demons.

# ? Sep 28, 2017 22:35

Snak: Oct 10, 2005; I myself will carry you to the Gates of Valhalla...
You will ride eternal,
shiny and chrome.; Grimey Drawer

Gobbeldygook posted:

The ethical system in the Good Place is that doing a good deed for a bad reason is not actually a good deed at all. You'd be hard-pressed to find a utilitarian who says saving a drowning child is not a good deed if the saver does it because he thinks people will like him for doing so.

Right, but if you assign points to all actions, and then use the sum of those actions to determine the goodness or badness of a person, is that not utilitarianism? Any system that only looks at net value has got to be related to utilitarianism, right?

Is there such a thing as micro and macro applications of utilitarianism?

Anyway, my point was that the point system show to use basically doesn't reward redemption. Under this point system, if you have already got enough negative points that you can't get back in the black before you die, there is no downside to just continuing to be ecil. Which is why I think that Michael doesn't have a full understanding of the system, because almost every religion believes in rewarding redemption.

Edit: actually, that's not what the system in the good place is: it's that you aren't rewarded for doing good deeds for bad reasons. It doesn't actually assert that doing a good deed for a bad reason means it's not good. It just says that you aren't praised for it. Which makes sense. Is it really the utilitarian opinion that people deserve to be praised for good deeds?

Isn't part of the idea of utilitarianism that motives are strictly inscrutable and cant be reliably determined, so they are irrelevant? Wouldn't utilitarianism looks different if you could magically sense other people's motives, because then motives themselves would be actions?

In real life, someone does a good deed. End of story.

In magical land, someone does a good deed and itnis broadcast to someone else that they did it for selfish reasons. So it's actually like 2 deeds, one good and one bad.

I dunno. I'm just spitballing here. Please don't get mad at me for butchering ethical philosophy.

Snak fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Sep 28, 2017

# ? Sep 28, 2017 22:52

Regy Rusty: Apr 26, 2010

Snak posted:

Right, but if you assign points to all actions, and then use the sum of those actions to determine the goodness or badness of a person, is that not utilitarianism? Any system that only looks at net value has got to be related to utilitarianism, right?

Is there such a thing as micro and macro applications of utilitarianism?

Anyway, my point was that the point system show to use basically doesn't reward redemption. Under this point system, if you have already got enough negative points that you can't get back in the black before you die, there is no downside to just continuing to be ecil. Which is why I think that Michael doesn't have a full understanding of the system, because almost every religion believes in rewarding redemption.

Edit: actually, that's not what the system in the good place is: it's that you aren't rewarded for doing good deeds for bad reasons. It doesn't actually assert that doing a good deed for a bad reason means it's not good. It just says that you aren't praised for it. Which makes sense. Is it really the utilitarian opinion that people deserve to be praised for good deeds?

Isn't part of the idea of utilitarianism that motives are strictly inscrutable and cant be reliably determined, so they are irrelevant? Wouldn't utilitarianism looks different if you could magically sense other people's motives, because then motives themselves would be actions?

In real life, someone does a good deed. End of story.

In magical land, someone does a good deed and itnis broadcast to someone else that they did it for selfish reasons. So it's actually like 2 deeds, one good and one bad.

I dunno. I'm just spitballing here. Please don't get mad at me for butchering ethical philosophy.

Sure thing, Chidi

# ? Sep 28, 2017 23:30

Ernie.: Aug 31, 2012

Snak posted:

...

Part of the fun of the show is having these discussions ... but not about the show. The show is intentionally opaque in whether points even actually exist. You're going to keep hitting the wall of 'yeah, but we need more information' because the writers have intentionally guarded against making any statements on the ethics of judgment. Whether that's for reasons in later seasons to show that Chidi was kidnapped from the actual good place, like Janet, or whether it's because they don't want a few dozen countries to boycott the show, we won't know until we keep watching.

But for now, the only safe assumptions we can make are 'the show says there's an afterlife, and people end up in different places based on the lives they've led'.

# ? Sep 28, 2017 23:40

Snak: Oct 10, 2005; I myself will carry you to the Gates of Valhalla...
You will ride eternal,
shiny and chrome.; Grimey Drawer

Agreed.

I'm not trying to pick the show apart. I just think the show generates a lot of neat questions.

# ? Sep 28, 2017 23:50

PotatoJudge: May 22, 2004; Tell me about the rabbits, George

Superstore and The Good Place back to back is good TV.

# ? Sep 29, 2017 01:01

Arist: Feb 13, 2012; _{who, me?}

ELEVEN

# ? Sep 29, 2017 01:33

pwn: May 27, 2004; This Christmas get "Shoes"

Supercar Gautier posted:

I think the null hypothesis is to assume things work the way we are told they work, until we specifically learn otherwise. The show would become unmoored from any sense of rules or stakes if we couldn't trust our basic understanding of how the Good/Bad places operate.

"The Good Place is real and follows these principles, but the protagonists aren't actually there" is firmer storytelling ground than "Who knows what's true, welcome to Calvinball".

If this show ever does go off the rails (and I hope it doesn't,) the thread title has to be, "Welcome to Calvinball."

# ? Sep 29, 2017 01:33

Arist: Feb 13, 2012; _{who, me?}

this is goddamn amazing

# ? Sep 29, 2017 01:36

howe_sam: Mar 7, 2013; Creepy little garbage eaters

I forking love this show :swoon:

# ? Sep 29, 2017 01:38

Regy Rusty: Apr 26, 2010

You guys I'm in awe

# ? Sep 29, 2017 01:39

General Dog: Apr 26, 2008; Everybody's working for the weekend

Oh my God this owns. They're burning through like ten seasons (or 600 seasons) in ten minutes. Jason got one!

# ? Sep 29, 2017 01:39

Pope Guilty: Nov 6, 2006; The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

This just gets better and better with every passing minute.

# ? Sep 29, 2017 01:40

eke out: Feb 24, 2013

i love where they're going with this season

# ? Sep 29, 2017 01:44

Arist: Feb 13, 2012; _{who, me?}

oh my god

# ? Sep 29, 2017 01:45

General Dog: Apr 26, 2008; Everybody's working for the weekend

Couldn't he make a version that doesn't have a Janet?

# ? Sep 29, 2017 01:46

Pope Guilty: Nov 6, 2006; The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

"You've been here 15 times!"

# ? Sep 29, 2017 01:46

Regy Rusty: Apr 26, 2010

Welcome to the main cast, Vicki

# ? Sep 29, 2017 01:47

howe_sam: Mar 7, 2013; Creepy little garbage eaters

General Dog posted:

Couldn't he make a version that doesn't have a Janet?

It's not The Good Place without busty Alexa

# ? Sep 29, 2017 01:47

Pope Guilty: Nov 6, 2006; The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

Regy Rusty posted:

Welcome to the main cast, Vicki

She really loves that Australian accent.

# ? Sep 29, 2017 01:47

ElScorcho: May 8, 2008; Horse.

If this was anybody but Michael Schur I would be concerned about what's going on this season but I can't wait to see how this is all going to play out.

# ? Sep 29, 2017 01:47