The Good PlaceâAn Introspective View on the World of Virtue Ethics
© Gryphyll
I am not a good person. Or maybe I am not capable or reliable to tell that. Here is what we called the existential crisis on being good or not. The world is taken by storm of controversial debates of philosophical views to have a single definitive answer to that question, or even if that question requires us humans to be concerned. Or if that question even really matters. While I am constantly bombarded with dilemmas and pushed against the edge of problems, studying patterns of the ideal good happens to contribute to these issues, putting myself between choices, difficult choices. Itâs a decision for possibilities, like different options of realities asking me to choose them. Oftentimes, I was choosing to be the self I wanted to be or better than that version of self. Itâs the very question of choosing between good or bad took form in every single oneâs life.
Unsurprisingly, it is a question overwhelmingly as ancient as time was first observed. There were great figures of history that have dramatically changed humankind for their ideas in being good, doing good and acting in and for the good. Several thousand years and few decades of modern age later, not a single idea has ever proven the best theory to find the absolute good and even the most ideal one.
Love. Hope. Will. Values. Wisdom. Purpose. I see us the virtue-seeking being affecting the definition of life on earth one decision at a time. All of our decisions are based in the moral understandings shaped by those ancient-old ideas just to be good, do good, act in and for the good. However, those are being criticized in its own ways that these are too biased to be applied in all walks of life. There is a rational approach that could lead to a long debate in choosing between a genetically modified eggplant and its naturally grown one, choosing the former has consequences or may be called not good. This as simple as harmless problems have taken different forms in our daily lives affecting the entire societies that ethics is not an individualistic, but a sociological dilemma. Humans have struggled devastatingly to this issue of finding the absolute good.
You maybe called a nihilistic when you believe that thereâs no way we can be called as good or not. There are no rules, you may say, however there are too much philosophies in life happened to rule time and times that devastatingly changes the course of our fate as humans. Religion and theories have been trading people to wars for the true basis of the good from which a vast space of beliefs and biases has emerged since.
I am living in the most peaceful period of this issue, as I see it that way, a biased view, at least.
©NBC
There is an intelligent sitcom on TV that fuses philosophy and moral ethics with comedy and itâs so brilliantly made to mock this issue of being good. The American show, âThe Good Placeâ in which every season explores if ethics is effective to an unbelievably and incredibly âbadâ person wrongly sent to the âGood Placeâ, like the Christian concept of heaven but neutral to all kind, after she died. A bunch of similarly bad but very differently identified persons tried to better her wrongly accused âbestâ personality while she is being taught by her âsoulmateâ moral philosophy professor.
It turns out that they are being tortured to eternity by a bunch of âdemonsâ acting like the âangelsâ of this fake Good Place, as they are in fact the most evil humans ever recorded in the Bad Place, being actually mentally, socially and efficiently tortured by believing they are in the Good Place, as subjects in the ânewâ approach of torture aside of very usual not-safe-to-imagine ways of torturing bad humans in hell. One of them includes the professor. The second season repeats the entire experiment, erasing the memories of four, the American girl âtrashbagâ who have committed too much sins in life in several different ways; her Senegal-born French-Australian moral philosophy professor soulmate whose life was no different than a very typical professor that always finds and struggles with the very best and ideal theory of philosophy in life, but caused so much pain to every person he encountered with from each of his indecisions as he knows that no single idea can be the most applicable in life; a gorgeous Pakistani-British elite woman who have the most wealth and fame on earth and have given billions of pounds and dollars of charity to the poor yet being motivated by her issues of being neglected and compared by her parents to her artist sisterâs similar fame, not by absolute good will; and, a Filipino-American DJ who is interestingly dumb that suffers from impulse issues, behaving like a child, acting like a child, doing whatever without even thinking about it, or out of morality. These interesting four subjects reflect mostly the trend and issues in ethics in respond to finding the most ideal theory to be applied in real life.
There is an architect or the manager of this fake neighborhood or a fraction of the Good Place who eventually turned to humans that he has been torturing to 800 years. It is because their unpredictability and flaws that always make then found out that they are in the Bad Place. Tired and hiding from his âdemon bossâ who oversees his experiment, he make them friends out of âgoodâ will, learning ethics and philosophy with them so he can explore how and what to be like a human. Eventually, the demon became âgoodâ as they believe he is, as well as the four, become the better versions of themselves because of doing good and acting in good. This is actually the theory and theme in itself in the show. The creator of the show, Michael Schur, doesnât present a definitive scenario pushing the humans against circumstances with some of the moral ethics to be the most applicable in reality. Instead, he presents a world of virtue ethics competing for the very best scenario in achieving a single answer to each of those theories. Hence, the show is a form of more than an entertainment, but a metaethics, as been called by the critics and researchers of the show, which basically questions ethics whether it matters or not.
©NBC
The show have put infamous debates in ethics, using Utilitarianism as the most dominant theory in the show, in which it may be presented as the ideal option but only on its statement that the very purpose of life is to be satisfied, in this case, doing good things that caused a person and others to be happy. Other philosophical views, ultimately, depend to the Kantian ethics of acting out of âgood willâ in order to be good. In this case, humans have to act out of sense of moral obligation or âdutyâ. Another one is the situational ethics, telling that there is no rules to tell you what is good in situations unless you decide one that situation more beneficial than the other, like breaking a promise.
There is a significant and powerful concept presented in the show against all of those theories. Some philosophers believe that we are doing good, behaving to be good, or basically âareâ good, because we believe that we know the good between bad or not bad. It is called âmoral intuitivenessâ. Hence, those concepts may not be applicable to lead the ideal life since we are already capable to judge what is morally right and wrong. At the end of second season, it achingly changes the show by totally erasing their memories once more but this time, they return to their own lives in earth before they have previously died like nothing happened. It is a decision made by an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient âuniversal judgeâ to know if their demon-friend is true whether they have really overcome their old and became the better versions of themselves after taking and applying ethics in (after)life even the âpointing systemâ have already identified them as âbadâ persons. The entire third season runs around this theme in which these essential characters have effectively been better even not knowing they studied ethics in afterlife, or it actually didnât happen.
The third season, ultimately, presented the very problem being ignored in the world of ethicsâhumans are woven to very complex systems of good and bad that a single choice can no longer be determined as good. Eating a muffin produced by a company accused of labor abuses is a point decreased to your good points in heaven. Buying a stick of fresh rose from a flower shop has caused you more than thousands points because it was delivered by a diesel-fueled truck emitting thick volumes of carbon gases and contributed to the climate change and other several sins have committed before that rose came to your hands just to give happiness to someone. Likewise, reality today is a very complex patterns for an individual to dwell in and it is more difficult to decide for the good every time. It is the new philosophy in the show, as the fourth season unfolds.
The show, very surprisingly, has condensed several criticisms in ethics and philosophy in just a limited time, in 22 to 25 minutes. It is a wonderful show full of actual creativity and imagination but fused with existential question about life and death, morality and how to be essentially good. I have been binge-watching this in free TV and Internet since in my senior year but sadly it will end on its fourth season in 2020.
The judge once questioned that the biggest revelation is that life is complicated. Life is indeed very complicated. We are now at the times that goodness is difficult to define. It doesnât mean everything we do for good is not good. We are not capable of judging the absolute good in us. The very human thing we can do, is âdoingâ and acting in good despite knowing it may be enough. Doing good has no requirements. It is not difficult it may seem. Nevertheless, no one can do good to us but ourselves. Spreading goodness is not always an option but a duty we need to do.












