If you murdered every murderer, you should get enough points to go to The Good Place, right?
Hypothetically speaking of course. I’m obliged by lemmy.world rules to state that I do not condone murder. 😉
Irrelevant discussion, no one has been to the good place in a long ass time it was all ancient ppl
Friend this is the Bad Place do you not remember season 1
What the fork is a Chidi?
Jason figured it out? Jason!? Aw this is a real low point, yeah this one hurts
If there’s a ‘Good Place’, then there’s one rule of ten that ALMOST EVERYONE ignores. Kings, popes, game hunters and every ‘Christian soldier’ pretends it’s complicated. It’s a very simple rule, with 4 words using only 16 letters. A 5-year-old can understand it. There’s no escape clause. Ignore it and you’ll not get there.
So… What’s the 4 words?
Thou shalt not kill
(It’s okay, I didn’t understand the reference until someone else commented it below)
Ty
Of we’re talking points, then you’re rolling the dice. If they’ve already murdered, you’re not preventing those, so you’ve done no good. If they’re going to murder at least two more people, you should net out positive, by preventing those murders. But you can’t know they’ll murder more people; maybe their murderin’ days are over, and they’ve given it up; maybe they’ll get hit by a bus before they can kill anyone else; maybe they’ll get caught and imprisoned before they can kill again. If you murder them, but they’d never have killed again anyway, you’re pretty well net negative.
Very mild spoilers if you haven't seen Season 1 of The Good Place
Although, The Good Place is ambiguous about how intention impacts points. Take Tahani: she’s there because, despite all the good she did, she did it all for the wrong reasons. OTOH, take Doug, from S03E08. He did everything he did because he had an epiphany that told him exactly how the system worked, so everything he did was to maximize his points. By the Tahani rule - and by the plot device of several other episodes - having that knowledge taints your actions and prevents you from gaining points from good deeds. Yet Michael pretty clearly believes Doug is the template for how to get to the Good Place - a direct contradiction of - if not Tahani - than other episodes where the characters are doomed because of their knowledge of the system.
I’ve only watched through season 3, so if there are any other spoilers below, they’re purely accidental.
So: while The Good Place is somewhat ambiguous about the question of Doing the Wrong Thing for the Right Reason, I think in balance it’d weigh against you. You should have tried other things first - like tipping off the police. If all you’re trying to do is get into the Good Place, your best bet is to try and reform thre person. Even if they killed you - maybe especially if they killed you - self-sacrifice in a good cause is clearly a lot of points.
“Thou shalt not kill” is a pretty straightforward commandment. No qualifiers, no exceptions. No “go ahead and kill if you believe you’re justified”.
Per the New testament so long as you accept Jesus afterward and repent you should be fine though.
Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.
Murder as punishment? Bad.
Killing someone who has killed before, who is known to commit more murders, to prevent them from committing more murders? Generally bad, too, unless the system is totally broken.
Kill 1 person its a tragedy, Kill 10000 its a statistic.
Lets change the statistics of billionaires?
Ah the old Schrodingers Dexter X The Good Place Crossover Episode Gambit, a decent argument. However I think it can be disproven through the axioms suggested through Zenos Jurrasic Park III X Terminator Clause.
And if somebody kills you?
Does that include other people who only murder murderers? And yourself?
If you only kill one murderer the number of murderers stays the same, if you kill 20…
The number of bad murderers changes tho
This was actually a huge problem in medieval times. The people back then adhered to the existence of the death penalty, but they also didn’t see it as anything aside from a kind of state sanctioned murder rather than how you’d expect many people to see execution. Executioners were thus highly stigmatized, to the point where we have that stereotype today of medieval executioners having that black veil over their heads to conceal their identity, and out of necessity, the role of executioner was inherited like that of a monarch rather than acquired, since often nobody would’ve otherwise sought the job. Executioners were considered so much of an outcast and felt so little incentive to be executioners that it was medieval law that they would get a lifetime supply of free food in order to reduce the burden of the job. They were considered a hesitant necessary “evil” that put a cap on other “evils”, like adultery (oh the horror). Or so they say.
Times have evolved though, and I go by a different school of thought (schools of thought where it’s much more difficult to get to the bad place and stay there if your intentions are good). I cannot help you out of legal issues should something happen, but I have faith that doing what you consider to be a favor won’t be eternally punished.
So you’re only a net positive if you murder more than 1 murderer. Because if you murder a murderer then you become a murderer and we’re net 0 on murderers. But the more murderers you murder, the more negative that murder number becomes.
You know they say “2 wrongs don’t make a right” – yes – but maybe a dozen wrongs could.
you get eight seasons and three spin-offs.
You get a place that’s not a Good place, not a Bad place, not even a Medium place, but a Luigi’s Mansion.
Isn’t the whole point of The Good Place that it’s not really possible to boil things down to “good” or “bad”? It’d get you closer to The Bad Place but that doesn’t necessarily mean it was a bad thing to do.
