Skip to main content

The Good Place

The good place is a great entertainer - especially the first season. The climax of the first season was the highest point for me. Things did start going downhill (in my personal opinion) but the show managed to keep me hooked till the end. I certainly wanted to know how the show ends. However, I have some beef with the basic premise of the show - it is either flawed or they took the easy route. To discuss these issues, I will, unfortunately, have to divulge the intricate details of the show. So, needless to say, this post is full of spoilers. So, if you plan to watch the show, it would be better if you read this article after you finish watching the show. Else, the article might give a neat summary of the interesting ideas in the show.

The basic premise of the show is that the criteria for deciding who goes to the good place are flawed. The main justification for the claim comes from two observations:
  1. For the last 500 years, no one has been to the good place (think heaven).
  2. Doug Forcett (an individual who happened to correctly guess the afterlife after a mushroom trip and lead an “ideal” life afterwards) was not sent to the good place.
However, from the episodes, it is clear that the same people believe in the following principles:
  1. One of the main characters Chidi Anagonye is a person with extremely good intentions. But, his extremely timid nature unintentionally causes others inconvenience. And this is cited as a valid reason to be sent to the bad place (think hell). Thus, people who unintentionally inconvenience people will be sent to the bad place. 
  2. On the other hand, another main character Tahani Al-Jamil does a lot of good but with the sole intention of getting her parent’s attention. As her intentions were not good, she also apparently deserves to be in the bad place. Thus, people who do a lot of good, but for selfish reasons are sent to the bad place.
  3. Almost all great philosophers are told to deserve the bad place as they believed in slavery or were racist or sexist or something similar. Thus, people who are racist, sexist, support slavery etc should go to the bad place.

Now, given these three principles, I am not at all surprised that no one in the last 500 years went to the good place. The third point alone excludes the vast majority of all people in the last 500 years. Almost everyone would be “guilty” of racism, sexism, casteism, classism, support of slavery or something of that ilk - at least by the modern definitions of these. In addition, they should do good with good intentions. My gut feeling is that no one would satisfy this stringent condition. The second evidence is even weaker. Doug’s intention was a good afterlife. Thus, his intentions were not pure at all and hence he does not deserve to be in the good place according to these principles.

So, if the fact that no one has been to the good place in the last 500 years bothers you, it would be natural to question the 3 principles stated above. Yet, the show does not take this path at all - and that to me is the biggest problem. It instead attacks the “eternal” nature of the punishment - and asks for multiple chances to improve. But, once you are in the good place, you either stay there forever or end your existence.

I believe, if we want to ensure that at least a small percentage of the dead go to the good place, then we need to either abandon objective morality or keep the objective moral code extremely minimal.

I have been an advocate of moral relativism for quite some time. That is, I believe that good or bad is temporal and social. If we use the morality of the society they lived in and ignore intentions (as it is quite difficult to understand intentions) it is almost axiomatic that many (including many of the philosophers who were sent to the bad place) would go to the good place.

To give some credit, there is an instance in the show that can be interpreted as a similar critique. In the show, there is a primal being who also acts as a judge in case of disputes. So, the issue of whether the current system of the afterlife is fair or not is also judged by her. During this discussion, the main characters accuse that she is unable to empathise with human struggles - thus making her incapable of making correct judgements. This incident can be interpreted as a criticism of the objective morality conceived by a person beyond the realm of time.

But, the show does not take this idea forward. It looked like they are fond of objective morality. Moreover, as has been the practice from the beginning of civilisation, the current Western (possibly liberal) morality is offered as THE objective morality. And clearly, it does not make me happy.

Coming back to the earlier point, things get a lot more complicated if we take intentions into account. The condition that your intentions and impact should both be good sounds quite stringent to me - so much so that I would not be surprised if it disqualifies almost everyone even if we use relative morality. I believe that probably only those who cause intentional harm should go to the bad place. Everyone else, should go to the good place. Of course, determining both intention and impact is a very difficult task and that is where an omniscient figure would come in handy.

Even an omniscient figure would have a hard time determining if the impact is positive or negative. A given act might affect some people positively and others negatively. How should we judge the overall act in such situations? Taking the average probably would be the utilitarian approach (assuming I understand the principle) - but it might not appeal to others. Ideally, I would prefer to go only by the negative impact - completely ignoring all positive impacts. And, I am not entirely sure why I prefer that. Moreover, I certainly see two problems with this approach:
  1. Once again, almost everyone might end up in the bad place.
  2. People with this approach will end up doing very little - the fear that they may cause damage will prevent them from taking action. Chidi fits the bill to some extent. 
All said and done, it is clear that the show has provided me food for thought and entertainment. So, the criticism should be thought of only as a wish that it could have been better. 

By NBC -, Fair use,


Popular posts from this blog

Naruto; the saddest death

For me, the saddest death in Naruto, is undoubtedly, Yashamaru's death. Let me say a few words about why I think so. For me death by itself is not sad. I would in fact say that death is a blessing for the one who is dying. It is sad for those who are left behind. From that perspective I think Yashamaru's death is the saddest. Yashamaru was the only comforting figure in the life of Gaara. The moment it is revealed that the assassin who tried to kill him was that same Yashamaru was heart breaking. The way Gaara cries "Yashamaru.." still resonates in my mind. Loneliness is one of the central themes of the anime. And, that scene captures it so magnificently. One of the most touching moments in the anime. There are several other deaths for which I shed a lot of tears. Like the deaths of Haku or Zabuza or Jiraiya or Obito. But they truly shine through their deaths. As Jiraiya himself says "The true measure of a shinobi is not how he lives but how h

Deepavali - an interesting twist to a Greek Myth

Greek mythology contains tales of dangerous semi-human enchantresses called Sirens.  They seduce travelling sailors to their island using music and song to shipwreck on the rocky coasts.  Odysseus wanted to listen to the song of Sirens.  Heeding to the advice of Circe, he asks his crew to fill their ears with beeswax(so that they will not hear the song) and tie him to the mast of the ship.  He instructed the sailors that they are to leave him tied even if he orders to do otherwise.  Thus he could hear the song of the siren while escaping the treacherous end at the hands of Sirens.  This idea is called pre-commitment and is a favourite of many self-help gurus. The Tamil movie Deepavali gives an interesting twist to this story -  the hero is not Odysseus but a crew member.  Let me elaborate.  The heroine in this movie suffers from post-traumatic memory loss.  Troubled by the stressful experience of not recognising people she is supposed to recognise, she decides to go away from home. 

Kumbalangi nights

I was not impressed by Kumbalangi nights.  I don't mean to say it is a bad film.  It is certainly worth watching.  The cinematography is extraordinary.  Also, it has its moments - nice little dialogues.  But with all that, it is just an average film, or so I feel.  As I had explained in a post before , people expect explanations when you express dislike.  Actually, I wouldn't say I dislike, but I did not like it as much as others - the people I talked to.  And, in this case, I think I understand some of the reasons.  And I will be sharing those reasons with you. What do you feel when you hear someone saying "These impoverished people are so lucky.  Wish I had a skinny body like them"?  Movies like Kumbalangi nights elicit the same emotion in me.  The major problem poor people face is lack of money.  If you make a movie on the poor and completely take money out of the equation, that makes no sense.  Kumbalangi nights does precisely that.  Not even once had they show