it depends. If my actions although seemingly good accidentally cause injury to someone then yes, I am responsible. We take that into account in courts today. But the examples mentioned by Michael are different than that. If I buy some peaches from the store that happened to be produced by a farmer who uses dangerous pesticides why should I get negative points for that? Maybe if I knew in advance that the farmer uses bad pesticides I could get some negative points but am I really expected to research every food I buy to make sure that everyone who produces the food is also a good person? And what if all the peaches in the store are produced by "bad" people then what do I do?
I have a mathematical solution. Don't consider just the positives and negatives of the action, consider the delta. (Value of taking action) - (Value of not taking action). So if not firing somebody risks the collapse of your company that would have worse consequences, the value is the difference between firing and not firing. It also works for the 'steal to feed your starving family' solution, the moral value of letting your family starve is subtracted from the moral value of stealing. Of course, you wouldn't just have to consider 'No action', you would have to consider 'Best reasonably knowable alternative'. So you're not subtracting just what happens if you did nothing, you're subtracting what happens if you took the best possible alternative path that you can reasonably be expected to guess.
Yes, you should get negative points for that action. You bought peaches that used a dangerous pesticide. You argue that you didn't know, but you have the means at your fingertips to find out that information. You could spend your time researching which food to buy to limit harm to others or the environment, but instead you're posting on a Star Trek forum. By not spending your time researching food you're deciding that it's not important and that in itself is an action that is worthy of a point score. I'm not trying to single you out or say everyone is bad and deserves to go to the Bad Place. What I'm saying is that just because we live in a complicated world doesn't mean we have the right to throw up our hands and absolve ourselves of the consequences of our actions just because the line from cause to effect isn't immediately obvious.
But, if you google, you'll get Georgia themed porn. And you'll get ten different articles pro and against with no compelling reason to believe any of them over the others. How can a normal person with very little free time be expected to not only spend the time to research every single item they need to buy, but also be able to separate the industry propaganda from the real information? And it may be debatable whether using pesticides, on the whole, is a negative action, considering the universal whole of positives and negatives. Maybe the farmer was forced to either use the pesticides or go broke. Or maybe the extra cost to you from buying organic peaches would prevent you from keeping a roof over your children's heads. Or the hours and hours you would need to research would take you away from taking care of your children or putting in the work to a greater positive.
This is literally Michael’s point. That modern living is to complicated for the point system to be fair.
Yes, I know. That is why I am arguing that the point system should be reformed to not count secondary or tertiary effects as negatively.
And how many points do you lose just looking up the answer? You're using a host of products that contain dangerous chemicals, mostly made in 3rd world countries, pollute the environment during production, and again when you are done with them. Look at all the effects of the production of the electricity used to power the device while you weigh good and evil... You'd literally end up going to Hell by even trying to figure out if some other random decision you're making would cause you to gain or lose a couple of points. And you'd end up there faster because you starved to death while trying to figure out if there was anything you could eat without losing points.
Who here is arguing against reform of an imaginary system? I feel like you are reiterating what’s happening in the show. Except none of us are Shawn.
No. I'm not saying that at all. Of course the points system is broken and needs to be reformed. My posts were replying to this comment from Romulan_spy. What I'm saying is that you don't get to ignore the consequences for your actions just because those consequences aren't immediate. For example, we all know meat production is a major contributor towards climate change, so if you eat meat then you're contributing towards destroying the planet. You don't get to shrug your shoulders and say "Hey, I just bought a hamburger. It has nothing to do with me". Because, yeah, it does. Someone who gives up meat deserves more points than someone who doesn't. The same goes for someone who buys more ethical tomatoes. I'm not sure how anyone can argue differently. Of course, the show clearly shows that even someone who is aware of the points system and has literally spent every second of his life trying to maximize his points is still going to fail. The world is far too complicated and nuanced for anyone to be perfect. Every decision that you make has negative consequences, but regardless of that fact you're still responsible for those consequences because they were caused by your decisions. The solution to this problem isn't simple and that's what makes it so fascinating. You can't just ignore all indirect consequences because that's unfair nor can you lower the points requirements for the Good Place. My guess is the points system needs to be re-calibrated to weigh the motive and circumstances behind those decisions. Someone who buys tomatoes with dangerous pesticides because they don't care about the harm it causes is different from somebody who buys those tomatoes because they're too busy working three jobs like Jason's friend.
@Kelthaz My point is though, some indirect consequences are not obvious or predictable or require a PHD to reasonably predict. Accurate information about consequences is just not something a non-subject matter expert can find on their own. Judging ethical behavior as if humans are omniscient is not reasonable. One other option for the other two I had not thought of before. “Dry cleaning bitch”. The woman Eleanor screwed over.
Plus, this kind of thinking can only apply to first world countries. In the starving parts of the world, small villages in Africa or even poor rural parts of America, they don't have the means to do the research on how meat affects the climate, nor the inclination. They are fighting to just survive day to day. Holding people accountable for these kinds of consequences is just not reasonable in my opinion.
What I think the show is saying is making ethical choices doesn't necessarily result in ethical outcomes for all people. Everything a person does makes both a positive and negative impact in the world and you can't predict it all because we all lack the knowledge of what the real answer is to problems because maybe sometimes there is no answer. PLus being such a slave to the points system can harmful to the people themselves. Doug Forcett tried so hard to be the ultimate good person and not only was he still creating negative things in the world it was making his life miserable which bring up the the issue that the point system itself is not just flawed but unethical to begin with. Maybe the best answer is for people to just try and be nice to each other and do good but also find a balance between doing good and just living your personal life the best way you can and not sweat over the stuff that you have no control over. Jason
She appeared on Last Week Tonight in a sketch about portable homes and how they trap poor people into situations where they don’t own the land their house is on, can’t afford the rent and can’t afford to move it.
Michael Schur did an exclusive interview with Rolling Stone, where he discussed many of the developments of season 3 and offered hints about what to expect in season 4. This part particularly stood out: Wouldn’t John recognize the other three humans as the non-celebrities who died under bizarre circumstances with Tahani? And if Chidi’s memory has been wiped back to his original death, won’t that interfere with what John knows of how he died? So, we didn’t say this explicitly — because if we actually laid out all of the things we wanted to, explicitly, the show would be nothing but exposition — but the idea is, when the Judge gives them the OK to erase Simone’s memory back to before she met any of the other four, and then Chidi decides to erase his memory back to the moment of the air conditioner falling on his head in his original timeline, all of the other people who might have any knowledge of his alternate timeline life/death would have those little memories erased as well. So, for example, John remembers that Tahani died in Canada (or, probably more likely, that she “disappeared” in Canada, since there would be no actual official account of what happened to her, or anything), and we’re positing that if he happened to have any memory of someone named Chidi Anagonye or Eleanor Shellstrop or Jason Mendoza also disappearing in that same moment, it would’ve been wiped.