The Good Place: Moral Reward

[Gem]

Hi, Guys


If you haven't see the TV series 'The Good Place', I recommend that you watch it - all. It is about 4 people who find themselves in the afterlife (since they died on Earth, of course). The subtext of the main plot is basically a treatise on moral philosophy, and the show fundamentally questions what it means to be a 'good person'.


The concept of moral reward is when you do good things because you receive a reward, like a place in heaven, or otherwise, eternal punishment in hell, as Christianity says. Christian morality is fundamentally predicated on reward and punishment, which is also how "The Good Place" represents the afterlife.


Without too much of a spoiler alert, toward the end of season two, the way people are judged in the afterlife, as deserving of the 'good place' or 'the bad place' is questioned. Mainly, if one does good things to earn a heavenly place for themselves, does that mean they are not a good person because they expect the reward in return, and are really only doing it for the own selfishness? If something is done because a reward is promised, is that 'goodness' in essence? Is there essential goodness at all?
__________________
.

[Ariaecheflame]

I love that show. I'm enjoying Micheal's experimenting and how he is (sort of) having a kind of 'change of heart' even if he is sort of just fumbling his way through haha ha...

The intro music is a bit drab as well haha... Kind of sort of verging on happy but not insanely interesting. A funny little reminder of the nature of the good place.
I won't say too much else

Spoilers and all.

[Gem]

One very interesting aspect of the Philosophy portrayed in the show is how 'goodness' exists in togetherness as opposed to anyone being 'good' in and of themselves. The show seems to dwell on the question of compassion and care, in the sense that if I care for others I will be less likely to harm them, yet still, be very likely to torment those who care for me. This seems to go against hedonist morality which is like, if it feels good, it is good. It seems to be saying, ironically, your torture is your care, but that raises the question of truth, are we in fact objectively connected, or do we create connection with compassion, empathy and care?

[7luminaries]

We are connected objectively and subjectively and what you might say degrees of connection vary. But this is essentially fact and doesn't speak to the subjective experience of liking or disliking (or whatever other experiential emotion or feeling applies).

IMO clearly the connection, no matter how tangential, is subjectively better when we connect with kindness and compassion.

I haven't seen the show and it may be interesting to see their depiction of the afterlife. It strikes me that so often this topic is presented as a sort of false dualism, damned if you do and damned if you don't. Meaning it's not good to do good for a purely or primarily self-interested reason...and yet it's arguably even worse to do no good at all (presumably also due to self-interest/apathy).

Behavioural scientists would say we start with the former and hope that self-interest moves to an enlightened self-interest and eventually to a genuine regard for others. If not, at least you've learnt the please and thank you bits and can get on minimally in civil society. Which is a reasonable argument.

So all the hands-wringing seems to be saying that most don't really care about others but feel guilty about it, eh? Due partly but not only to a belief system.. IMO it's also due to rising levels of consciousness and thus, of ownership.

I.e., ownership brings awareness and folks are perhaps uncomfortably self-reflecting and are realising that for whatever reason (=things have changed within and without) they just can't quite get away from it. Or, it's not so easily ignored and put off as before.

...This is actually a telling comment on the state of society at the mo and it is interesting that this is the focus of this show, rather than on bells and whistles in the afterlife, LOL. And it's to be expected that a ratcheting up of one's conscience/consciousness will be inconvenient and bothersome for many folks.

Peace & blessings
7L

[Ariaecheflame]

Interesting comment 7l.

I wonder if the characters of the show are in a way stuck in the toddler developmental stage then?

Child development observers note a stage where children are just trying on 'being nice'(if that is what is modelled to them in their extended environments) but they are still pretty much self interested or self focused as they practice being considerate to others lol...
Just a thought?

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by emeraldheart

Interesting comment 7l.

I wonder if the characters of the show are in a way stuck in the toddler developmental stage then?

Child development observers note a stage where children are just trying on 'being nice'(if that is what is modelled to them in their extended environments) but they are still pretty much self interested or self focused as they practice being considerate to others lol...
Just a thought?

Sooo true Emeraldheart Your comparison with known childhood developmental stages is spot on.

I would say infancy or todder stage is apt for much of humanity who are currently struggling to come to terms with taking ownership for almost anything really, but particularly what they themselves intend, think, say, and do. That essentially defines these stages...naked self interest, narcissism, learning primarily only through consequences and boundaries (rather than through reason or compassion), and first inability and then resistance to taking ownership for all of one's being.

All of this falls into the "spiritual diapers" stage as I see it
That is my shorthand for the lot of it.

Peace & blessings
7L

[Gem]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

We are connected objectively and subjectively and what you might say degrees of connection vary. But this is essentially fact and doesn't speak to the subjective experience of liking or disliking (or whatever other experiential emotion or feeling applies).

IMO clearly the connection, no matter how tangential, is subjectively better when we connect with kindness and compassion.

I haven't seen the show and it may be interesting to see their depiction of the afterlife.

It's a silly comedic depiction, and the plot is also, but the subtext is all about the ethical dilemmas surrounding what is essentially right and good.

It strikes me that so often this topic is presented as a sort of false dualism, damned if you do and damned if you don't. Meaning it's not good to do good for a purely or primarily self-interested reason...and yet it's arguably even worse to do no good at all (presumably also due to self-interest/apathy).

There is still the issue of how goodness is associated with motive, so the pure selfish act as opposed the act to general benefit is merely a representation of why one does what they do.

Behavioural scientists would say we start with the former and hope that self-interest moves to an enlightened self-interest and eventually to a genuine regard for others. If not, at least you've learnt the please and thank you bits and can get on minimally in civil society. Which is a reasonable argument.

So all the hands-wringing seems to be saying that most don't really care about others but feel guilty about it, eh? Due partly but not only to a belief system.. IMO it's also due to rising levels of consciousness and thus, of ownership.

I.e., ownership brings awareness and folks are perhaps uncomfortably self-reflecting and are realising that for whatever reason (=things have changed within and without) they just can't quite get away from it. Or, it's not so easily ignored and put off as before.

...This is actually a telling comment on the state of society at the mo and it is interesting that this is the focus of this show, rather than on bells and whistles in the afterlife, LOL. And it's to be expected that a ratcheting up of one's conscience/consciousness will be inconvenient and bothersome for many folks.

Peace & blessings
7L

I guess in the show, the afterlife's good and bad places represent the consequence of actions, which can be seen as just desserts, but then again the notion of deserving is an issue of judgment... which really conforms to Christian ideas, but as the show goes on and the plot thickens, the quandry of judging in the right and correct way is brought into question...

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by Gem

It's a silly comedic depiction, and the plot is also, but the subtext is all about the ethical dilemmas surrounding what is essentially right and good.

There is still the issue of how goodness is associated with motive, so the pure selfish act as opposed the act to general benefit is merely a representation of why one does what they do.

Hello Gem,
IMO self-reflection is a natural thing to do for humanity. AND YET the pushback is defensive, fierce, and thus far pretty unrelenting. Socrates said the unexamined life was not worth living. He was offered banishment or a life of silence...which is a form of a living death -- the annihilation of meaningful communication of your inner thoughts.

The unspoken question here is why is self-reflection such a difficult burden to accept? It's not, if ownership is freely received. But if we want to be in spiritual diapers forever, then ownership is a huge and scary burden and we resent the hell out of it. At best we are terrified and uncomfortable. We could all self-reflect right now...but it's telling that this is so often portrayed as all that heavy stuff we'll have to face in the afterlife, LOL...

I guess in the show, the afterlife's good and bad places represent the consequence of actions, which can be seen as just desserts, but then again the notion of deserving is an issue of judgment... which really conforms to Christian ideas, but as the show goes on and the plot thickens, the quandry of judging in the right and correct way is brought into question...

Yes we all judge, often without realising and many times also intentionally and perhaps with some degree of mean-spiritedness and schadenfreude. So this aspect too seems spot on in its reflection of current times. Meaning, it's always been a known issue, the harsh judgment of others (due not only religion but to many other -isms...racism, sexism, classism, and all the usual suspects).

Now however we're finally examining and questioning that presumption of the right to pass judgment. In many cases, upon reflection and discussion, our motives are revealed to be base or are obviously self-interested. Often, the judgment is shown to be a structural form of oppression (of "those ppl" or "ppl like that and not this")...harmful and toxic but in fact baseless and not sound on its merits, due to our lack of knowledge of the context and of those we judge. It's how we (especially at the elite and the more powerful levels) shame or abuse others and keep them down for not conforming to the dictates and whims we inflict upon them.

Peace & blessings
7L

[blackraven]

Originally Posted by Gem

There is still the issue of how goodness is associated with motive, so the pure selfish act as opposed the act to general benefit is merely a representation of why one does what they do.

I was at a store yesterday and a elderly man was in front of me fumbling with his wallet as well as having general difficulty understanding the transaction. He seemed very confused. I looked down and noticed large bills of cash all around his feet. Instead of me touching his money I tapped him on his elbow and told him he had cash on the floor. He looked down and picked it up and thanked me.

Question is why did I tell him he had money on the floor? I suppose I've been around enough elderly people to know just how much they struggle. I felt sorry for him I suppose. I wanted to help him out. I didn't tell him for a reward. In fact I wouldn't have cared if he said 'thank you' or not. I simply put myself in his place with the hopes that someone would treat me the same. Just plain ole human compassion and care for ones fellow man/woman.

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by Gem

...
There is still the issue of how goodness is associated with motive, so the pure selfish act as opposed the act to general benefit is merely a representation of why one does what they do. ....

Thoughts create thought forms. They materialize, and are attracted to, and attach to their creator, spanned over one or more lifetimes.

The thought forms that follow us are those we created not those created by those we acted upon. Theoretically ....

If your actions are "good", and your thoughts are "bad", then you create "bad" thought forms. If the recipients of your "good" actions have "good" thoughts then they create "good" thought forms, if they have "bad" thoughts then they create "bad" thought forms. Only the thought forms you created get attracted to you and will materialize in situations and people in like.