S02.E06: The Trolley Problem

[Mabinogia]

23 minutes ago, Lugal said:

(although they probably stole that from a movie or cartoon)

I get a feeling that's where most of Jason's ideas come from. lol

[Rachel81]

Every episode just gets better than the last! They keep setting a high bar -- and then catapulting themselves over it every week.

 

And I didn't notice anyone mention this, surprisingly, but I was so excited at the return of Michael's evil laugh! There are some varying degrees to it, depending on how evil he's being, or how much he's enjoying the evil he's inflicted, which is also brilliant. But the full-on evil laugh when he asked Eleanor for a high five for the trolley torture. Slayed me! 

[Captain Carrot]

On 10/20/2017 at 8:08 AM, SoothingDave said:

Your post makes me wonder if the entire thing was designed to lead to growth in Chidi.  Disguised as torture.  So, like this isn't the Good Place or the Bad Place, but Purgatory.  If not intentional, it is an interesting effect anyway.  Forcing Chidi to choose is probably exactly what he needed.  

I think that it's a Purgatory that Michael created by accident, and he'll be 'rewarded' by being put in charge of it for the rest of eternity.

[wilnil]

1 hour ago, Captain Carrot said:

I think that it's a Purgatory that Michael created by accident, and he'll be 'rewarded' by being put in charge of it for the rest of eternity.

Cool idea! Shawn: "Michael, you idiot, you were supposed to torment them, not fix them! Now you've screwed up our entire purpose, and the whole Bad Place concept is going to be overhauled by the Big Bosses!"

[Blakeston]

On 10/22/2017 at 8:02 PM, Lugal said:

I agree that Jason is not malicious, he doesn't really think beyond the moment.  When Acidcat sued him for "bleach of contract" his response was to blow up his speedboat. 

Blowing up someone's speedboat isn't malicious?

He wasn't doing it because he likes fire, he was doing it as payback (for a situation Jason brought entirely on himself).

On earth, Jason seemed like the type of person that manages to be cheerful and a selfish jerk at the same time.

[CherithCutestory]

1 hour ago, Blakeston said:

Blowing up someone's speedboat isn't malicious?

He wasn't doing it because he likes fire, he was doing it as payback (for a situation Jason brought entirely on himself).

On earth, Jason seemed like the type of person that manages to be cheerful and a selfish jerk at the same time.

And slashing tires is also malicious. And the reason his buddy started a new dance crew is that Jason framed his girlfriend.

Quote

They told us Jason was nice, through Eleanor's words. I don't know if they showed us that though. I definitely disagree that "he only understands loving and giving".

And Eleanor barely knows him in this go around. 

Eleanor doesn't remember that he didn't give a crap about Tahani and Chidi having to go the Bad Place in his place. She doesn't remember that he was also fine with her going to the Bad Place as long as he could stay.

When push comes to shove Jason has been shown to be more selfish than any of them.

Quote

I'm still trying to wrap my brain around Chidi killing 5 Shakespeare's for one Santa.  I would think he'd be opposed to Santa as a mechanism for bribing children to be good-- rather than arrive at the decision to be good on their own.

I, mean, I agree with you in theory. But I'm not sure if I could actually kill Santa if faced with it.

Edited October 24, 2017 by CherithCutestory

[AnnieBeez]

53 minutes ago, CherithCutestory said:

[snip]

I, mean, I agree with you in theory. But I'm not sure if I could actually kill Santa if faced with it.

As long as it wasn't baby Shakespeare(s), I think sparing Santa's the way to go. 

[possibilities]

But Santa isn't real

[AnnieBeez]

1 hour ago, possibilities said:

  Reveal hidden contents

But Santa isn't real

I should never have clicked on that spoiler button! 

[Lugal]

6 hours ago, Blakeston said:

Blowing up someone's speedboat isn't malicious?

He wasn't doing it because he likes fire, he was doing it as payback (for a situation Jason brought entirely on himself).

On earth, Jason seemed like the type of person that manages to be cheerful and a selfish jerk at the same time.

I agree Jason is a cheerful selfish jerk, but I don't see it as an act of "I hate this person and want to see him suffer" on Jason's part, it was more a matter of: "this guy is suing me, I need to stop him, so I'll blow up his boat." (Logic isn't exactly Jason's strong point)

It's interesting how the four of them fit together:  Jason is not introspective and has not looked beyond himself so nothing else beyond him really matters. He is both king and keeper of his realm.

Tahani is not introspective but looks beyond herself to others, so she thinks she deserves everything good she gets (more than her sister) and everyone out there is a means to that end.

Chidi is extremely introspective to the point of being incapable of looking beyond himself and how it effects people on a real as opposed to theoretical level.

Eleanor is introspective and she does look beyond herself, but ignores or doesn't care about what she found so it doesn't interfere with what she wants.

[twoods]

Maybe it's because I had my Chidi/Eleanor shipper glasses on, but I absolutely loved how decisive Chidi was when Michael said that Eleanor would be the patient to donate all of the organs to the dying patients. There was no hemming and hawing or second guessing- he said no way. I hope those two crazy kids make it.

I surprisingly like Tahani and Jason together. 

Ted Danson continues to be the MVP of this show. I love all the actors, but he is absolutely killing it.

[DrScottie]

11 hours ago, twoods said:

Maybe it's because I had my Chidi/Eleanor shipper glasses on, but I absolutely loved how decisive Chidi was when Michael said that Eleanor would be the patient to donate all of the organs to the dying patients. There was no hemming and hawing or second guessing- he said no way. I hope those two crazy kids make it.

I hope they do too. We already know they did get together at Mindy's on eight visits to the Medium Place (and eight is the best according to Jason's rating scale) along with stating their love for each other. Now, whether this new found assertiveness lasts remains to be seen. 

If that's the case, I wonder if Vicki will notice that new confidence and realize something is up and/or like it and try to seduce him.
All of that presumes that Janet's inability to deal with Jason and Tahani as a couple don't destroy the neighborhood first, 

I'm thinking there might be significance to the number 8 besides the two references above. There were over 800 attempts. On its side, 8 is infinity. That could be it too.  Eleanor's shrimp machine had 8 sauce choices but that's fairly standard for a soda dispenser. 

Edited October 25, 2017 by DrScottie

[LoneHaranguer]

22 hours ago, CherithCutestory said:

I, mean, I agree with you in theory. But I'm not sure if I could actually kill Santa if faced with it.

Was this the historical figure or the modern guy in a red suit? The latter is attributed with enough supernatural powers, he may be able to take care of himself if you sent the trolley his way.

[Dowel Jones]

"Ho, ho, holy shit!"

[CherithCutestory]

1 hour ago, LoneHaranguer said:

Was this the historical figure or the modern guy in a red suit? The latter is attributed with enough supernatural powers, he may be able to take care of himself if you sent the trolley his way.

No offense to St. Nicholas, who seemed like a cool dude, but I think it's fat pink Santa in his suit I'd have psychological issues watching be dismembered.

[LoneHaranguer]

2 hours ago, Dowel Jones said:

"Ho, ho, holy shit!"

Shouldn't that be "Ho, ho, holy shirt!"?

[EyewatchTV211]

Since this episode was showing theory vs. practice a bit, I think this is an interesting and relevant article about Chidi that fits with why people here have argued that he does belong in the Bad Place (or at least why he is not in the Good Place): http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2017/10/23/559570771/the-good-psychology-in-the-good-place

[DrScottie]

6 hours ago, VMepicgrl said:

Since this episode was showing theory vs. practice a bit, I think this is an interesting and relevant article about Chidi that fits with why people here have argued that he does belong in the Bad Place (or at least why he is not in the Good Place): http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2017/10/23/559570771/the-good-psychology-in-the-good-place

Right. Being aware of the principles and key players in moral philosophy does not turn someone into a better person intrinsically. Knowing how you should behave and actually behaving in that matter are two separate items. Even a very simple moral philosophy like the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" or "Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself" is straightforward enough and doesn't require a fundamental understanding of the tenets of existentialism, for instance, to abide by it. 

[TheOtherOne]

"What has one thumb and wants to keep going? THIS not-lady. Eh? Ehhhhh?"

[The Companion]

On 10/20/2017 at 9:57 AM, ItCouldBeWorse said:

I agree, so I was glad when they switched to the hospital version.  Hippocratic Oath aside, I assume that nearly everyone would agree that you don't kill 1 healthy person to harvest organs for 5 ill people, even if you could guarantee the survival of those 5 people. (Of course, you could introduce variables such as what if the 1 person is a vile criminal; what if the donor, though healthy, is aged and the recipients are all teenagers {I didn't say children, because the organs might not fit}; what if the recipients were the only people who knew how to save civilization from some great disaster; etc.) Even so, most people wouldn't want the doctor to kill anyone.

 

What if the person you would kill volunteers? Suppose a parent was willing to die if it meant their child would survive? Then there are the cases where you don't kill the person, but you do cause them unnecessary pain. For example, the cases where parents have another child to act as a donor. http://www.nytimes.com/1991/06/04/health/more-babies-being-born-to-be-donors-of-tissue.html?pagewanted=all

On 10/20/2017 at 0:00 PM, sacrebleu said:

I'm still trying to wrap my brain around Chidi killing 5 Shakespeare's for one Santa.  I would think he'd be opposed to Santa as a mechanism for bribing children to be good-- rather than arrive at the decision to be good on their own.

 

Perhaps there were children present. They are about to see something incredibly traumatic, but wouldn't it be so much worse for them to watch Santa die? Man, I might have a future as a demon myself.

 

What worked so well, in my opinion, was forcing Chidi to actually experience his hypotheticals. It is a fun thought exercise when it is purely theoretical. It gets much harder when it is presented in reality. 

[ItCouldBeWorse]

22 minutes ago, The Companion said:

What if the person you would kill volunteers? Suppose a parent was willing to die if it meant their child would survive?

This occurred on a recent Blacklist and in an episode of House on which John Laroquette guest-starred (in the latter case, the parent wasn't going to be able to maintain a reasonable way of living anyway, so....)

[mmccpp]

The Trolley Problem won a Hugo Award at the World Science Fiction Convention, for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form.  The other nominees were:

Black Mirror: “USS Callister,” written by William Bridges and Charlie Brooker, directed by Toby Haynes (House of Tomorrow)

“The Deep” [song], by Clipping (Daveed Diggs, William Hutson, Jonathan Snipes)

Doctor Who: “Twice Upon a Time,” written by Steven Moffat, directed by Rachel Talalay (BBC Cymru Wales)

The Good Place: “Michael’s Gambit,” written and directed by Michael Schur (Fremulon / 3 Arts Entertainment / Universal Television)

Star Trek: Discovery: “Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad,” written by Aron Eli Coleite & Jesse Alexander, directed by David M. Barrett (CBS Television Studios)

[John Potts]

Love Michael's solution to the Trolly Problem! And he was totally right about Les Miserables…

Holy forking shirtballs, Chidi swore! Although that makes me wonder - at what level is the Swearing Censor set? I know where I used to work we had to say to "Austin Powers 2" and not "Austin Powers: The Spy who Shagged me" because it was potentially offensive. Or is the swearing censor simply calibrated to American English? 

It's weird that Chidi would be a fan of Kierkegaard, as Existentialism is about "living authentically" (Practice what you preach and accept that life is about choice, in very simplified terms) - exactly the sort of things that Chidi is really bad at. I'd imagine he'd be much more of a Kant fan, personally (his philosophy was far more abstract).

On ‎10‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 5:18 PM, Mabinogia said:

And no way in HELL is it better to kill a healthy person to save 5 dying people. That's murder. All this moral philosophy stuff is pretty interesting though.

Except you're failing to save five people - aren't they just as dead? Not saying you're wrong - I'd make the same choice - but why is it OK to make a passive choice to let people die over an active choice to kill one? What if killing one saved a hundred? A Million?

On ‎10‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 6:00 PM, sacrebleu said:

I'm still trying to wrap my brain around Chidi killing 5 Shakespeare's for one Santa.

I didn't get that either. Unless killing Santa kills the idea of Santa - but then that's actually the Utilitarian choice (probably), as Santa ceasing to exist would upset billions.

On ‎10‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 7:04 AM, arc said:

here’s a real morals professor’s two year old son on the trolley problem

A budding Michael there!

On ‎10‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 3:44 PM, Mabinogia said:

If you get all sex that is immediate passage to the Good Place. 

I'm sure there's plenty of people who think getting "all sex" is their idea of The Good Place! (OK, I realise it was a typo, it just tickled me).

[Mabinogia]

2 hours ago, John Potts said:

Except you're failing to save five people - aren't they just as dead? Not saying you're wrong - I'd make the same choice - but why is it OK to make a passive choice to let people die over an active choice to kill one? What if killing one saved a hundred? A Million?

Those five people were dying by natural causes. I don't think anyone has the right to decide to murder someone to save someone else. There are too many variables. What if one of the people you save grows up to be the next Hilter? What if the guy you killed was going to cure cancer in the next few years? I believe in letting nature take it's course. 

And I certainly don't want someone deciding to kill me to save other people. I may make that choice myself, to sacrifice my life for others, but no one has the right to make that choice for me. 

I love that this show has made me think of things like this. I do think I am capable of murder in the right situation, face to face with Hitler, knowing what he was, I would not hesitate to pull the trigger. If someone I loved was in grave danger I would kill to save their lives. But as a blanket statement, I do not believe in killing one person to save any number of others unless there was some very specific criteria involved. Like shooting a terrorist who hijacked a plane to save the lives of those on board.

That is a different case, because the terrorist is trying to murder the other people. It gets a lot trickier if, say, someone is carrying a deadly contagion by no fault of their own and the only way to stop it spreading is to kill him. I think I would still choose to kill that person to prevent further death, but I would never be the same after. So many variables. Morals are hard. 

[aradia22]

Michael's solution to the trolley problem was great.

"What do you think about writing a rap musical about Kierkegaard?"

"Plus they're all French so they're going to the Bad Place automatically."

Wow, they went very gruesome with the trolley problem.

"What has one thumb and wants to keep going? This not-lady. Eh? Eh?" I love Janet so much.

[aradia22]

Quote

As for Michael's apology, I kept waiting for a last second reveal. I think the way he was set up since the s1 finale to have been revealed to be a master liar means I can't trust what seemed on the surface as a wholly sincere apology. Like the saying goes, if you can fake sincerity, you've got it made.

This is a small problem I have with the show now. It's like when Michael first spiraled into his existential crisis. It takes me a while to figure out if it's a genuine reaction or if he's just playing them. Ted Danson's acting ability works for him and also against him because the show isn't written in a way where we're allied with his POV so we know for certain.

Make room for me on the Michael/Eleanor bandwagon. I get the sense they want us to root for Eleanor/Chidi but I don't. They have better platonic friend energy than romantic partner energy. Not that I want anything romantic to happen between Michael and Eleanor either but I can see them leading a new afterlife realm in a more balanced version of the Middle Place.

[Fukui San]

19 minutes ago, aradia22 said:

This is a small problem I have with the show now. It's like when Michael first spiraled into his existential crisis. It takes me a while to figure out if it's a genuine reaction or if he's just playing them. Ted Danson's acting ability works for him and also against him because the show isn't written in a way where we're allied with his POV so we know for certain.

Make room for me on the Michael/Eleanor bandwagon. I get the sense they want us to root for Eleanor/Chidi but I don't. They have better platonic friend energy than romantic partner energy. Not that I want anything romantic to happen between Michael and Eleanor either but I can see them leading a new afterlife realm in a more balanced version of the Middle Place.

It’s not too late to bring on Stone Cold Steve Austin as a romantic partner for Eleanor.