The Philosophical Undertones of The Good Place
As a philosophy major, I’ve taken numerous classes on ethics and morals. As I took more and more of these classes, the less and less I wanted to take another one. Often, these classes are burdened by abstract theories and principles that have no application to how the world really works. Whether or not an action is good or bad plays a major role in how we go about our decision-making in our daily lives. Generally, we choose to act on what is considered to be good and choose not to act on what is considered to be bad. In other words, we make decisions based on a system of ethics and morals. But after having taken all these classes, why haven’t I learned anything on how to better live my life?
Recently, I discovered the NBC fantasy comedy, The Good Place. This show has provided a new take on morality and ethics: one based on practicality and application.
A Brief Summary of The Good Place
The Good Place follows the story of four individuals: Eleanor Shellstrop, Chidi Anagonye, Tahani Al-Jamil, and Jason Mendoza. The four have since passed away and woken up in “The Good Place” — the story’s characterization of heaven. After many plot twists, we eventually find out that our four characters are not the moral idols that they were initially presented as. Instead, we find out each character acted in a morally reprehensible way and are sent to ‘The Bad Place.” What initially presented itself as another sitcom becomes a story tackling the importance of self-development and self-reflection through the notion of morals. So, I wanted to pose a question:
“What does The Good Place mean for us?”
Between Chidi Anagonye and Jean-Paul Sartre
To answer this question, I’d like to focus on the ambiguity of moral philosophy seen primarily through Chidi Anagonye’s character. Before I get into unpacking what Chidi’s character means for us, I’d like to give a story that helps illuminate the importance of Chidi’s character.
Jean-Paul Sartre, an existential philosopher, tells a story about how one of his students approached him with a moral dilemma. Should he join the French Revolutionary army and fight for his nation? Or should he stay at home with his mom because the only thing his mom lives for, at this point of her life, is her son? Sartre gives the usual response: an ambiguous and nearly useless philosophical answer about how his student should consider his feelings. But that’s the takeaway. His student should not rely on things such as Christian ethics or Kantian ethics because they are, in fact, ambiguous and nearly useless. These concepts and theories are so abstract that they offer no help in actual real-world scenarios. Rather, his student should do what he feels is right.
Chidi and the Ambiguity of Morality
In the show, Chidi is a professor of moral and ethical philosophy. Initially, it would seem like he would be a great place to start investigating practical insights of moral philosophy. You would think he would be a walking system of moral takeaways—that every line he has in the show is something practical that we can use in our daily lives. However, it’s the exact opposite.
Chidi’s character showcases the downfall of abstract moral philosophy. It’s clear that he has an amazing and deep understanding of ethics and morality. The shows claims that this is part of the reason why the other characters can become “better versions of themselves.” He can teach them the basics. However, Chidi’s vast knowledge of moral philosophy has left his character horribly indecisive and incapable of doing what is right. In fact, Chidi’s indecisiveness was the main reason why he was sent to “The Bad Place.” His inability to make decisions hurt everyone in his life.
Let’s refer back to Sartre’s story.
Sartre’s student approached him because he could not make a decision given his dilemma. Christian ethics would have told him to go fight for his neighbors and his nation. And to no surprise, Kantian ethics has no clear and understandable answer as to what he should do. While it’s not important why these ethical theories draw such conclusions (or a lack of a conclusion thereby) the fact is that his student could not reach a decision from consulting these abstract theories. And that was why his student had to ask for advice. Chidi is in a similar boat. Despite all the moral and ethical philosophy he knows, he can’t make a decision.
Chidi’s Categorical Imperative
Chidi is constantly talking about how “Kant says we should never lie.” When he says this, he is referring to the philosopher, Immanuel Kant.
Kant’s most famous moral theory was the categorical imperative. Briefly, an imperative is something that we ought to do. Think of it as a moral duty. When he says categorical, he refers to something universal. Therefore, Kant argues that there are categorical imperatives (universal moral duties) that we must follow. One of those imperatives is to never lie. We can see this is something that further showcases the impractical nature of moral philosophy.
In one of the episodes, Chidi’s friend, Henry made a difficult decision of purchasing hideous boots.
When Henry asks Chidi what he thinks of them, Chidi lies and says he likes his boots. Clearly, he made the right decision of making a white-lie given the social circumstances. However, his commitment to moral philosophy is so intense that he can’t even sleep at night since he has violated Kant’s categorical imperative by lying. Another example meant to demonstrate that abstract theories cannot tell us how we should act in the real world. If we never told white lies and followed Kant’s categorical imperative, think about all those awkward situations we would’ve been in…
“This is why no one likes moral philosophy professors.” — Henry (Chapter 7)
The Trolley Problem is Torture
In another episode, Chidi is forced to participate in a simulation of “The Trolley Problem.” The Trolley Problem is a famous ethical thought experiment. It involves a scenario where a trolley is about to hit five people on its tracks, but the operator has the choice of re-directing it to another set of tracks where it only hits one person. It is meant to show the clash between utilitarianism and deontology. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that emphasizes maximizing the greatest good. Utilitarianism would argue that we should hit the one person because hitting one person is better than hitting five people—hence for the greater good. Deontology is an ethical theory that argues we should not focus on the end result of our actions. We should focus on doing as much good as possible by considering our motivations and decision-making leading to the end result. Deontology does not provide a clear answer to this thought experiment.
The Trolley Problem is meant to torture Chidi because every time a simulation occurs, he kills a person or persons— committing a morally reprehensible action of killing another person (another violation of Kant’s categorical imperative). As torturing as it is for Chidi, the trolley problem is also a torture to think about. There are no takeaways and no correct answers to this thought experiment. While it seems easy to say utilitarianism argues we hit the one person, deontology always has a problem with utilitarianism.
The thought experiment has also taken many different forms. What if that one person was an old person, your best friend, your beloved puppy? Given these circumstances, it would be hard to say utilitarianism is the way to go. These different forms have led to more and more questions. How can we justify killing at all? Is it okay to kill an old person since they’re going to die soon? Why in the world are philosophers asking me to contemplate the death of my dog? Ultimately, it leads to something along the lines of “utilitarianism says this, but deontology says that…” and vice versa. Torture for Chidi and torture for us.
What The Good Place Means For Us
Hopefully, it becomes clear that using abstract moral philosophy to guide our lives isn’t beneficial. But that isn’t the takeaway. Most of us probably aren’t going to dabble in Kantian ethics or deontology. This is why I told you a story about Sartre’s student. The Good Place shows us one of Sartre’s takeaways: his idea of freedom.
Sartre’s notion of freedom believes our lives are not pre-determined. In other words, we do not live to become something that has already been determined or destined. Instead, we live and define ourselves day-by-day. Every action that we do contributes a piece into who we are as a person. Our existence is defined by our freedom.
This is seen in the show because the characters were initially sent to “The Bad Place” because of their morally reprehensible actions. Eleanor was selfish and never cared about other people. Chidi hurt people through his indecisiveness. Tahani did so many good things for the wrong reason (to one-up her sister). And Jason was a spontaneous criminal who thought a Molotov cocktail was the solution to everything. Since they have been sent to “The Bad Place,” you would think that their fate has been determined and they would be left to eternal suffering and torture.
However, the show follows each character’s development into becoming “better versions of themselves.” Elenaor learns how to be selfless; Chidi learns how to become more decisive; Tahani learns that about having the right motivation behind good deeds and Jason learns that he should think before he acts. Despite the system that was implemented to calculate their moral worth, the characters fight against this system to prove that humans can change and become better. This is in line with Sartre’s notion of freedom. The four main characters are not defined to be bad people who deserve to be in “The Bad Place.” They define themselves every single day by their freedom and their actions and it is through their freedom that they choose to become better people.
The show is currently on its fourth and final season. While we won’t know where the main characters will end up after their final test, what we can be sure of is that we are free, and we define our lives through our own actions every single day.
