I Solved Morality! | THE GOOD PLACE FINALE Season 2 Episode 12 | "Somewhere Else" Reaction
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 09. 2024
- This show never quite goes far enough...yet. If you want to be good how should you seek it? Let's discuss. My review.
Join this channel to get access to perks ►
/ @tyleralexander
Join my Patreon ► / tyleralexander
Follow me on instagram ► / thetyleralex
LINK TO MY BOOKS ► www.amazon.co....
Follow me on Twitter ► / thetyleralex
Follow me on Tiktok ► www.tiktok.com...
Follow me on Twitch ► / tyalexxx
Cute observation. Earlier this season when Chidi and Elenor were talking about everything they’ve gone through together he says “I wish we met how regular people meet ….you came knocking on my door asking for help with philosophy” fast forward to now and that’s how they meet!
"What we owe to each other" is the book Eleanor writes the note in in season 1
I remember the creator of the show talking about developing it and asking philosophers about becoming a better person but most of them would say you can't train to be a good person you just are. However Aristotle thought it was like a muscle you could improve by performing good actions until it became an intrinsic part of you
I love your distinction between "lack of moral reward" and "addition of external mistreatment because of moral deeds." One is about wanting a bonus, and the other is just about not wanting additional obstacles.
this is one of those videos you need to rewatch after you finish the show because you are gonna feel soooo vindicated about something you said in this episode
Paying lip service to a subject is still a step in the right direction, just like tolerance can lead to acceptance, that can lead to supportiveness
Wasn’t expecting the flamingo shorts 😂
i’ve always found the argument of “if you’re doing something good to get a reward, it doesn’t make you good it makes you greedy” really annoying. i’m kind to people because it makes me feel good, if i were to be mean it would make me feel bad. this is literally because of an intrinsic reward system made up of hormones and neurotransmitters that exists because humans function better together than alone. does that mean me being kind is insincere? because i get a nice heaping of dopamine after i do it? i complimented someone’s outfit and we both get to walk away from that interaction smiling.
Yeah it always feels as if we're just taking something from ourselves. Your example is a really good one; giving someone a compliment and making their day, and feeling good for making the person feel that way is just a net positive for all involved and the 'you only did it for reward' works to take away not only the good deed but the joy it inspired in both parties which leaves me with a feeling of 'but why though?'
I think sometimes we don't want to allow ourselves the space to be happy 😅
I used to punish myself after I did nice things because I thought that it wouldn't count as a good deed if I felt good about it. Being raised religious sucks.
@@Scarygothgirl I'm so sorry that you were raised to think that way. Sending much love ❤️
Yeah. I'm an extremely selfish person, because I act on my desire to help people. Helping people makes me feel good. Does that mean I shouldn't?
I hate small talk so much. It feels like a dance I don’t know the steps to. That compliment wouldn’t be a good deed if you did it to me. It would send me into an hour long spiral of self-hatred “why can’t I just talk back what is wrong with me I let everybody down etc.”
Now you don’t care, because you already got the dopamine from complimenting me. I think what the judge is saying is that you’re supposed to do good things because you’ve actually taken the feelings of the one you do it for into account, because if you’re only doing it for yourself there’s a lot more of a chance that you aren’t actually having the effect you think you are.
Absolutely loved your flamingo shorts - I wish I had a pair!
Thank you! 🦩😄 I stole them from my partner so I can't help you track them down, sorry 😅
I'm an alcoholic, so part of getting over that was purposely countering my negative habits, and basically putting more good into the world. God this throws me into a tailspin, cuz I do get "just desserts" of not being shamed by my actions, thus not hiding behind alcohol. Also, in turn, the end result is doing it for my own happiness, so more 'just desserts' i suppose. But at the end of the day, I'm still trying to put more good into the world than I used to, so I'd say just because it takes active effort instead of being part of my core personality, shouldn't mean I am still morally bankrupt; though obviously, I am extremely biased considering I am the 'subject'.
with rainbow capitalism i think it comes down to: companies seeing more financial value in visibly supporting the queer community than in catering to bigots says good things about where the world is heading. it’s annoying and hollow, yeah, but i’ll take insincere support over silence (or worse: vocal opposition) any day.
Yeah if nothing else it's a good sign of where things are at in society. The fact that they'd just as readily do otherwise if it wasn't profitable makes their support a useful barometer for social progress.
Loved your thoughts on this ep. It had me thinking about an experiment I read about years ago, so I’ve forgotten the finer points but basically they shocked rats every time they ate, so the rats stopped eating and starved to death, and the take away was that we would avoid things that are good for us in order to avoid pain. And I’ve noticed this in my own behaviour because I have IBS and when I decide to do a lot of things around the house or go to social events, I’ll often end up in pain, so it teaches me that the best thing I can do to avoid pain is stay in bed, which of course isn’t a good thing for me in the long run. I realise this is more about good for the person than morally good, but I think it can be applied to that too. Like, working in customer care, I find that the rudest customers often get way better financial rewards, which is probably why they continue that behaviour, but on the flip side, the people who are kind and respectful are the people you WANT to help, and there is a mutual gratitude at the end of such exchanges that seems to feel really good to both sides, where the person getting the higher financial reward from their rude behaviour still isn’t happy and the person at the other end of the conversation certainly isn’t at that point, and you can’t help thinking how much better it would be if those aggressive customers could see what it’s like the other way. Morally and behaviour are so complicated and intertwined with each other.
I'm sorry to hear about your troubles with your IBS. Being aware of how it can affect your behaviour in the way you describe and being wary of that is a great achievement. You're right. This idea of the 'reward' I think applies to so many scenarios.
I'm a huge advocate that everyone should work in hospitality/retail in a front facing customer service role early in life at least once. No doubt it wouldn't eradicate all bad behaviour, but I think so many people don't appreciate that those working those jobs are people too. It's such an indicator as to someones morals/self-awareness as to how they treat service workers.
"With the absence of that innate fulfilment, it's almost more impressive"
This is a really interesting argument and aligns with a central tenet of this part of the show - that morality is a skill you can build and isn't necessarily intrinsic. But it does raise challenging questions about intent, outcome, and consequentialism. If you don't feel fulfilment in it for its own sake, then are you just going through the motions, and does that render your morality meaningless? What does it mean to "do the right thing" if you're only doing it because that's what you're "supposed" to do? And what if those moral rules were written by someone with moral deficiencies - especially given that morality evolves with society? Obviously this starts to get us to a very uncomfy place with machiavellianism, moral relativism and moral desert. And that, of course, invites a whole new rabbit hole (for example, is it possible to have an "evil" person who only does "ethical" things? I'm really curious to hear your take on this question).
I'm not sure if I just talked myself in circles or if this is just a snake-eats-tail topic. On the one hand, I love the conceptualisation of morality as a buildable skill. On the other, there's an element of this concept that inherently relies on extrinsic motivation, which seems... not ideal? I don't know, what do you think?
I think you can boil down a lot of this to preference. As in, some of the angles you talk about here are our preference as humans as to how morality SHOULD manifest.
The idea of an evil person only acting ethically is interesting because there's so much attached to that idea. What makes them evil? Is evil innate (how can you measure this?), or to be evil do you have to commit an evil act? What defines this act as evil? In a certain case it becomes by definition impossible to have an ethically evil person because then that person can't be defined as evil if they're only ACTING ethically, despite perhaps feeling like they want to commit acts more definable as 'evil' and just not acting on that.
Out of all of those scenarios in regard to that one topic, what's our preference? Do we want to theorise to the highest degree and not definitively arrive at any satisfying conclusion, or do we accept this person has acted ethically based on their actions and that's all we need to know, despite perhaps their innateness drifting more into a space of 'evil' or 'less ethical'?
So preference. I mention this because I think this kind of thing boils down to how we prefer to define a 'good' act or a 'good' person. Do we want to only prescribe 'goodness' to those that innately act good as opposed to those that work on and build their ethics? Which one is the preferable measure? I think to work that out you've gotta ask 'which one helps us the most?'
Do we prefer a conclusion predicated on trying to measure something we can't possibly measure? Or a conclusion built upon measurable acts of good regardless of where that good might come from? For me at least, I find the latter preferable as it's practically something we can work with and USE to work towards making MORE people better, as well as offering whatever it might be (a reward) to incentivise people further to act even better than they already do.
I just think prescribing more to the idea that morality/ethics can be learned, improved upon, and something to strive for, is preferable in a working society because it's a line of thought that actively works to improve society, rather than miring us in a discussion that goes round in circles that practically doesn't allow things to get better all that much.
As with most things this also runs the risk of being corrupted due to those in power skewing the moral basis for the rules that are made, but I think to allow ourselves the chance at the best framework in society for improving ourselves collectively, morally, you have to risk that danger. I'm speaking about all this in a general sense, as if I get specific about our own reality and certain governments, laws, practises etc, capitalism, it becomes too much to talk about in a comment section 😂
On a personal note regarding rainbow capitalism:
I work in security and a couple months ago my supervisor sent out a message saying "The CEO of [company on whose sites I work] has made some controversial public statements and we should expect protesters on site [followed by procedures for respectfully dealing with protesters]"
Fearing the worst, I looked up what the CEO said.
Turns out it was something along the lines of "If you're a TERF, don't buy from us"
Which is undeniably based, and put all the progress flags painted on our crosswalks into a less cynical context.
My first thought: I think the rainbow capitalism example is a little more complicated. The goal should be liberation rather than equality and liberal platitudes about inclusion and 'love is love' *can* get in the way of better and more important discussions. In part, this is because the style and expression of stuff like queerphobia has changed since the 1990s in a way that facilitates queerphobic beliefs and systems existing alongside a nominal inclusion through stuff like rainbow capitalism. Similar to how many very conservative homophobic people supported gay marriage.
The two positions are not opposed but part of a single system that seeks to split queer identity for queer activity. One can express inclusion and acceptance of the former, while denigrating the latter. We can see that in evidence of attitudes toward stuff like non-monogamy hardening and becoming more conservative alongside the supposed softening of homophobia.
But, rainbow capitalism isn't bad because there's a reward for the company; it is bad because it ossifies the status quo and prevents further work.
Second though: On the issue of reward and morality, I think it changes depending on whether you're judging an action or a person. I don't think the actions we do are less moral if there is a reward in it, but I do think it is always the case that sometimes doing the right thing is horrible and contains no positive outcome for oneself and how we behave in those moments is a strong indicator of our moral ability.
Another way to frame it: maybe there is a difference between doing something good that happens to have a reward and doing something good for the reward.
I really like the point you make about sometimes doing the right thing or helping others can have no positive outcome for oneself and that such moments are a strong indicator of one's morality.
It comes back to the nature vs nurture debate. People only know what they've lived through, and if their environment is bad they follow what is modelled for them. It took me years to get the self awareness to recognise and change the behaviour that I'd witnessed as a child. Expecting people to do good things because they want to relies on them being in an environment that allows and rewards that behaviour. Undoing a lifetime of bad lessons is hard, and it also doesn't make you a bad person.
Well done on the flamingo shorts. Thanks for showing them off on camera! 😂
Mate, you're going to have Jeremy Bearimys of fun dissecting season 3.
"Be kind to people. Be ruthless to systems."
Fascinating Homepage Fact: I had the reaction for Episode 2 of season 3 recommended to me on my homepage!
I did click it out of curiosity and the video showed only the thumbnail at full size with the text "This video is available to this channel's members on level: Flamingo (or any higher level). Join this channel to get access to members-only content and other exclusive perks."
I did not know members only content could be advertised on the homepage this way!
Watching your journey when I know where the show is going is fascinating!
I always like the speculation, especially as 90% of the time, the writers thought the same and will eventually address or at least mention it.
I think the comment about getting a reward was more about religion than society. Particularly Christianity teaches you to "behave this way, believe this doctrine, be at this building for three hours every Sunday and you'll get rewarded over everyone else in heaven". When every good deed, every generous action is underpinned with this selfish motivation you aren't learning right from wrong, you're learning performative morality. And because performative morality isn't real morals, you see so many "good Christians" who are terrible people - People who say and do horrendous things but still think they're going to be rewarded in Heaven because they went to church every Sunday and donated to charity sometimes. (It's so easy for Performative Morality to be twisted into something hateful and ugly.)
If you want to apply this to your example, think of the corporations who sell Pride merch, and then take the profits and donate them to Anti-LGBTQ+ causes (or even have discriminatory practices towards their own employees). Yes, it makes LGBTQ+ more visible on the surface, but what these corporations are doing behind the scenes is way more damaging and they don't deserve any credit for that little performative inclusivity.
Personally, I don't think there is anyone who does good without expecting something for it.
The reward doesn't have to be physical, when people do good they feel good and that is their reward.
19:45... look up Kipling's poem "If".
Loved your discussion/analysis of this episode, thanks.
Friends: season 5 - the one where Phoebe hates PBS. There are no selfless good deeds.
This reaction makes me REALLY want you to react to Good Omens (only 12 episodes!)
Is that where Jacksepticeye's flamingo shorts went? Does anyone else remember this? 😂
If you believe in an afterlife and that your actions on Earth directly lead to a reward then you’d never go to the good place under the “you don’t get points for doing good deeds if you are doing it for a reward”
but it's belief, not knowledge. You could believe incorrectly, you've no way of knowing.
@@Sinewmire But Eleanor and co. were believing incorrectly about the reward the judge was talking about, it wasn't ever on the table. It's the same deal.
@@thegrandwombat8797 they know, for sure, about the Good Place, and how getting to it works.
@@Sinewmire But then by extension do you know that any action on Earth will definitely lead to a reward? It’s always on a belief.
I do see you could argue that the good place situation is different but it is still based on belief. They have no actual evidence that either the good place exists or what makes you able to get there.
@@jspettifer They have fairly compelling evidence, I'd say - and it's true. It's a justified true belief.
Politeness is the social lubricant that allows a society to function.
I gave a like for flamingo underwear. I can't deny it!!!!!
"[You do it for] a feeling of fulfillment in your soul." Well, okay Mr. Do-Gooder {to make it excessively clear, I am here addressing the character I was quoting}, but I do find it massively ironic how you're holding yourself up as a paragon who does good for the right reasons and in the same breath you are refusing to extend any compassion to the person in front of you who, yes, is imperfect, but has been sincerely trying to be better *and* do good, and is experiencing some pretty significant growing pains. And the silent, unasked question is so loud here: what's the rest of your life like? Did your upbringing make you feel as alone in the world as Eleanor does, or do you come from a loving, supportive family? Do the people around you abandon or mock you for trying to be a good person, or do you have a functioning support network? Do you feel like your access to the things you need to maintain your existence (as distinct from your lifestyle) is slipping away, or do you have that figured out (or possibly even have access to an independent source of wealth)? I'm not assuming the answers to these questions or saying there's nothing Eleanor could be doing to change her circumstances or perspective, and I certainly don't think the best answer was for Eleanor to do a full backslide, but it feels like this was a missed opportunity on his part to not stop at the question of "why do you persevere" and instead try to explain the very apparent question of how.
Like and agree with your comment.
I find it ridiculous Tahani is even in the bad place to begin with. She did so many great things in her life. Didn’t seem like she was mean to anyone. Yeah it was motivated by trying to win her parents acceptance. So that’s a character flaw. But is that worthy of going to hell?
As for Eleanor being good v that environmentalist guy. We really don’t know what his life and background is like. It might be that it’s just as hard for him to commit these good deeds as it is Eleanor, so I disagree with you there. Eleanor isn’t immune to being a good person because she doesn’t naturally have the desire to help others any more than that guy is