Why The Good Place's Judge is Evil ('The Good Place')
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 чер 2024
- Tahani Video: • How The Good Place Fin...
Jason Video: • What The Good Place Fi...
Discord: / discord
Patreon: / ithinkicanwrite
As the end of the trilogy after “What The Good Place Finale Revealed About Jason Mendoza” and “How The Good Place Finale Fixed Tahani”, we will be looking at The Good Place’s Judge and uncover a Secret about her! Do you think that that The Good Place’s Judge is Secretly Evil? Or, do you disagree, thinking that our concepts of morality cannot be applied to a higher being such as herself? Let us know what you think about The Good Place’s Judge being Secretly Evil!
Thank you for watching! Keep writing!
Time-Stamps:
00:00 - Mark Harmon, yum!
00:07 - Introduction
01:13 - The Problem of Evil
06:52 - The Points System
10:19 - Suffering & Entertainment
12:35 - The Judgement
13:26 - Question Time
13:57 - Super-Secret Send-Off
Sources:
- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem...
- Hickson, Michael W. (2014). "A Brief History of Problems of Evil".
- theconversation.com/why-rehab...
- plato.stanford.edu/entries/ju...
Credits:
- Sound effects obtained from www.zapsplat.com
Discord Server: / discord
Tumblr: / ithinkicanwritestuff
Business Inquiries: ithinkicanwrite1@gmail.com
Affiliates (Genuinely Recommended):
- Amazon Prime Video: www.amazon.co.uk/gp/video/prim...
- Blue Yeti Microphone: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B002VA464...
- Pop Filter & Mic Cover (Microphone Attachments): www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B084V54CF...
- PC (Recording & Editing) from Overclockers: www.overclockers.co.uk?tap_a=3629-86a85a&tap_s=867725-1423c7&
[DISCLAIMER: Links included in this description might be affiliate links. If you purchase a product or service with the links that I provide, I may receive a small commission. There is NO additional charge to you! Thank you for supporting I Think I Can Write, so we can continue to provide you with free content each week!] - Фільми й анімація
I never considered the judge to be good, but more neutral, rather than evil.
I'd say that's certainly one of the most agreed upon perspectives of the Judge.
Orange and blue morality
I think she serves as an antagonist for the story.
No... She was totally evil.
@@redcowcat8705 She is but it isn't a choice, she is evil by the nature of her job as are all judges in systems where there resolutions are binding. If you chose to disobey the judge you will be punished, if you fight the punishment you will be killed. All of these judges have authority that is predicated on violence and as such inherently immoral, the judge by virtue of being a judge like all judges is evil.
I mean you didn't have to even go this hard on the explanation. The judge is impartial but also largely apathetic and the fact she never tried fixing this problem proves how flawed her mentality is.
Going hard on the explanation is what the whole channel's about hahaha! :)
The problem with that is that you consider her mentality 'flawed' without any form of basis. This video looks at the evidence/explanations as to WHY she might be evil!
@@ithinkicanwrite That's a good point. It's also important to think about if a basis of a certain form actually helps. For example, if you were to talk about how the Good Place calculates points mathematically, you would talk about the math/statistics behind it as a basis. However, if you were to use an artistic basis (ie. how things are coloured and the perceptive qualities of the point system), the basis wouldn't be much better than a lack of a basis. Remember, work smart, not hard.
She didn't know there was a problem.
I think the judge is “true neutral”. In dungeons and dragons they have the concept of alignments (good, neutral, evil) with modifiers like lawful, neutral, or chaotic. Like lawful good or neutral evil. True neutral is just neutral neutral and it’s a really fascinating concept.
Interestingly, in line with D&D's alignments, I'd say she is perhaps lawful good. She is upholding a system that is meant to be 'good' to such an extent and dedication that she fails to see that the system itself is flawed and leads to flawed results.
I would say she is lawful neutral. She is law because she upholds laws, but there is no true empathy or true malevolence. Laws good or bad are enforced whether they cause pain and suffering to humanity is of no consequence to her. Since she enjoys the pain and suffering, she might lean towards lawful evil, but she still upholds the law first and foremost.
@@ithinkicanwrite I said true neutral because she does seem to delight in drama and suffering more than what I’d expect from lawful neutral.
@@tashokukisune That is fair, I can see that as well!
BRO IF YOU DIDN'T REACT TO SEEING HER THE FIRST TIME THINKING CHAOTIC LAWFUL, HAVE YOU EVEN PLAYED DND??? XD
To be honest, any person whose moral alignment is true neutral, can appear evil and I wouldn't trust such a person. They're obviously not good
Zapp Brannigan? Is that you?
I thought the Judge was presented from the beginning as neutral, not good
Interesting! For me, the show is very lighthearted in general so not many characters even come across as 'bad'.
But, for a character that is so funny and light most of the time, to be this 'evil' on closer inspection was a real surprise to me, at least!
@@ithinkicanwrite I think of the show as rather complex and challenging myself, rather than lighthearted
@@ithinkicanwrite Your argument has a very serious and academic tone, so I suggest that if your analysis of something is lighthearted and comedic, your argument should reflect that. Otherwise, you can end up with a very dissonant relationship between your theory and your evidence. For example, if your analysis of the show is that none of the characters come across as 'bad' from a comedic/artistic point of view, you shouldn't use the show's system (a written, serious point of view) as basis for part of your argument, as the show's writing states that many of said characters are 'bad.' I'd suggest that if you find yourself analyzing something in an artistic point of view, you should likewise approach your argument from an artistic standpoint. A good way to do this would be to toss out the academic proof side of things, and talk about how the show writes the characters (since you've stated that none of the characters seem very bad in this light). Hope this helps.
She's a Judge - True Neutral, she could be both good and yet equivalently evil. She decides not what is wanted but is to be required and so has she is oblivious or rather neglectful towards the influence and effect on others . She's Chaotic but at the same time Lawful, maintaining for the balance of both opportunities for Good or Evil.
And so for her to be True Neural is a major benefit and yet her fatal flaw.
1. Proportionality wasn’t the only problem with the point system. As it suggests, your points should be based on your direct actions. The point system, however, is based on all actions that rippled from the first one. That doesn’t make sense because the morality of a person is based on their intentions. The point system isn’t based on morality, just actions. Committing manslaughter isn’t unethical because it was not intended. The point system, however, would take away hundreds of points because someone died.
2. The tests the judge gave were flawed because they were based on each person’s personal problem. This doesn’t show their morality because it doesn’t show what they’ve learned. They clearly have improved.
3. No, it’s not fair to implement human concepts on an immortal, omniscient being. The judge knows literally everything like Janet. This means she knows true ethics and does not follow human ethics. As Eleanor says “Life only has meaning because we die.” Chidi also explains human morals and ethics in this statement: “Life has an end, therefore, our actions have meaning.” This implies that an immortal being doesn’t follow those same rules because life doesn’t have an end for them. Morals are built behind the idea of permanence. There are rights and wrongs because our actions can be permanent. Permanence doesn’t exist for an immortal being. With infinity, comes the lack of permanence. After an infinity, you still have an infinity. Permanence only seems to humans as forever because we can’t live to see forever: for an immortal being it would be different because they live infinity after infinity. They know that humans forget, and the loss of memory leads to the loss of feelings. After an infinity, we would forget. This is why the judge can’t perceive the idea the actions matter.
the judge is never described as omnibenevolent but neutral
Also, she isn't omnipotent. She lacks knowledge of TV Shows, our main characters, how bad Earth is, which Janet holds the remote... So many things.
I never understood how she could say she didn't watch humans to avoid bias. She really didn't judge anything as it was all based on the point system anyway. You also can't really judge something you know nothing about as well. Context matters, which is why reality stars that are portrayed as "evil" could actually be saints. You can't watch an edited version of human life then say you know everything enough to judge.
Precisely! And it is shown she enjoys TV shows, like procedural shows and dramas, which are, of course, an edited experience of the human life, on a fictional scale.
@@ithinkicanwrite Right and the reason they are enjoyable to watch is because it isn't real lol.
She doesn't judge the humans, she judges the afterlife. Though I really don't know why knowing about earth would affect her ability to do that
I'm rewatching this after seeing the good place ending on Netflix and I still believe she was just someone who remain neutral on all subjects to make an ruling that isn't bias
She turned the actual Judge into the burrito.
Damn, I never thought of it this way! About the question, I think morality can't be applicable to greater beings as their experiences, motivations, etc vary greatly from human beings
Glad to hear that I could help and bring another idea to life! :)
That's a very good point. Higher beings are very unfathomable to us, because of the reasons you mentioned so well! I'm inclined to agree that morality is very difficult to be applied to such beings.
I honestly feel that the Judge isn't supposed to be seen as good or bad since that's mostly a human aspect of life, and that wouldn't really apply to a being like her... While we humans might perceive her actions to be evil in nature, it may not really be the case since we're bound by the limits of human knowledge and comprehension...
All in all, it's like you say in the Judgement part... I think the Judge is a definite neutral party to what's going on in the show...
Thank you for the reply! Yeah, I would be inclined to agree; I feel like morality is such a 'human' aspect and construct that we can't really hold the Judge to the same standards. If anything, the character can be seen as... a plot device, really.
That's the whole point of her character, and the only human things about her are very superficial, watching shows all day long, gossiping, eating, all of them are fine but if that's the only thing she has in common with humans... That's a critique of artificial entertainment under capitalism
I think the point of the judge is that impartiality leads to evil actions not that the judge is evil herself. Her impartiality also leads to her ignorance of the lived perspectives of people.
That's definitely accurate. She kind of reminds me of Javert in Victor Hugo's Les Miserables. In a similar way, his stubborn commitment to his way of thinking makes him ignorant to the consequences his actions have for the protaganists.
Ok, this is before I see the video
I think the judge is in fact not evil, just impartial. Meaning that for her the comfort or well being of humanity is not her priority, but being fair and just is.
That doesn't mean she is passive, whenever a problem was pointed out to her, she did something to check if there was a fair solution. For example, when the humans first went to see her, she prepared tests to check if they actually got better, and had they passed the tests, they would have gotten in to the good place.
For comparassion, we can see the leaders of the good place, although the humans told them the system was broken, they refused to take any actions, and when negotiating with the demons from the bad place, they just agreed with everything they proposed. That is being passive, in my opinion at least.
Even at the end of season 3, the judge was willing to go to earth and see for herself if there was any problem there. She is constantly taking actions to ensure everything remains fair.
Well, that's my opinion at least
(And English is not my first language, sorry if any of my ideas were hard to understand)
Oh i love the confidence in "edit your comment and apologise"
And YES! Thank you so much for the talk abt the original points system! Like, the MAJORITY of ppl are going to be tortured? Most people arent that bad! Only awarding the exceptional and punishing everyone else for not being able to meet a very high standard, with no way to earn a way out. And then what about kids? Kids do die, tragic as it may be. Thats a wholeass thing we have to he concerned abt here. It is, as the characters would say, SUPER forked
I'm glad you enjoyed the video! That's also a very good point, the system applied to everyone, including children, which is just wicked and wrong!
Why humans exist and need to be sorted into two afterlifes to the judge is "eh, that's how it works" - her self-enforced ignorance works against her developing the concepts of empathy and morality. Even watching tv shows, she never showed any concept of underderstanding beyond actor attractiveness. Without empathy, without the idea of facing the same treatment (like Michael being retired), she would have no sense of the injustice of the system let alone want to change it or understand why her actions are so heartless. She may be able to omniscient all the details of one person's life, but it's clear from the rest of the show that those details which the system records are matter-of-fact and wouldnt provide experience - emphasized in her reaction to her trip to earth. Also, going from no empathy to victims to living that victimizing experience could easily explain her knee-jerk reaction to end everything.
The judge is not all knowingly, she’s all learning. She can learn anything but she chooses not too in order to stay neutral
This channel is actually REALLY good and well done and deserves more subs. Keep up the great work!!
Thank you so much for the kind words! I really appreciate it!
Another great video
Even for the worst person on the world, an afterlife of eternal suffering would NEVER adhere to the principle of proportionality. Even if every single thing someone did was despicable, and what they did during their lifetime singlehandedly had repercussions generations afterwards, it still wouldn't be fair, because eternity is immensurable by definition, absurdly more than the less-than-a-century taken to do these bad things. So I agree that the points system could never have worked with justice, right from the start (even ignoring the discussion around punishment as a form of justice)
Comment from the beginning of the video: I never thought she was omniscient or omnibenevolent, just omnipotent. The Janets are omniscient so she doesn't have to be.
Comment after the video: she's not evil, she's bored and apathetic. The concerns of a species that has existed for a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the time that they have existed is like how we think of goldfish in an aquarium. Wait. Are cats evil? Don't answer that.
Agreed; the judge never claimed to be good or evil, she is exactly what she was designed to be. The Judge is impartial. We also know she is not all three of the above requirements for a benevolent deity anyway, however. If she were truly omniscient then none of the groups Hijinx would’ve been successful. If she were Omnibenevolent… She would be a terrible judge. Her job is not to enforce morality, it’s to maintain order. That is what law is for, and her entire purpose would revolve around enforcing that. Ellen and her friends are forces of chaos, the exact opposite of what she is supposed to tolerate. Her sole purpose would be to either eradicate or control them… Regardless her personal feelings, if she has any.
She’s not evil, she’s an antagonist.
She’s a neutral antagonist
I'm guessing the next vid is going to be the FMA one or the Ac Oddesy. I'm really exited
The next video is the Full Metal Alchemist one! Then it's AC: Odyssey! Glad to hear you're excited Epy, they're going to be reaaaaally good as well!
One small problem: If you are omniscient and omnipotent, you can also be omnibenevolent in a scale humans cannot understand. If you know where every choice leads and you set upon yourself the limitation of not taking away free will (which she never did), then you can choose to act in a way that mentors others towards the right choices, your antagonism acts as a catalyst for Aesop's lesson. Another example can be found in the SIlmarillion. Every Valar is an facet of Illuvatar, including Melkor, but as he mentions, even his evil merely becomes a tool of creating a greater good for all. In this case, the conflict the Judge created made very participant into a better person, created a revised point system and ended up refining the afterlife for everyone.
I think you're a really good youtuber and look forward to your growth
Thank you so much, thats really nice of you to say! Glad you enjoyed the video!
Great video, but I have a few counterpoints. Namely, your argument that the Judge is evil relies almost solely on the concept that the Judge is not-good and not-omnibenevolent. However, not-omnibenevolent or not-good does not mean evil. It's stated several times that the Judge is an intentionally morally grey character, because she is an arbiter between the good place (all benevolent) and the bad place (all malevolent). I think your argument would have been stronger by proving that A) the Judge is not good, and B) the Judge is not neutral, which would only leave the option for bad (assuming you're using a linear good-neutral-bad scale). Another way to strengthen your proof would be to bring up counterpoints and then rebuttal them. For example, someone might say what I'm saying, and the best course of action would be to address the important points about that argument and providing a potential counter. Lastly, I think it's important to not just bring up vague and lofty philosophical ideas without how they work (I'm referring to the omnipotence-omniscience-omnibenevolence).
She has to stay neutral so yah she's not good or evil. She has to stay fair and impartial to everything.
It is a compelling argument, which is why ainlove your videos, but... I think the problem is that the judge is none of those things, she's not supposed to be ambivalent, nor omnipotent, and I'd even argue omniscient.
Sure she's the most powerful being that we see, but she's only full filling a role, and chances are she didn't even created the point system, so... Still don't really think she was evil
Thank you for your comment, that's so nice of you to say!
I completely understand that. Truly, 'The Good Place' is bureaucracy, but in the afterlife. That's why you have such neutral terms for things like 'Good/Bad Place', 'Accountant', 'Architect', and 'Judge'.
I say that because that's the character fulfilling her role, like you said. But, in this world, we can (slightly) theorise about what a 'Judge' can do. Even if she did not create the point system, she was aware of it and of the implications that type of system had for humanity.
Not from a philosophy persoective but i think the point of her character is to show a middle ground beetween good and evil being neutral being the being the main cast go to right after the badplace and right before the good place
she’s neutral i believe
I think her moral ambiguity allows her to be an effective judge.
she's more of a chaotic neutral
(emphasis on chaotic)
-"gonna erase the eaaaaaaarth, erase the earth"
I like that when God is referenced, he put a picture of Gabe. Nicely done.
Ah, another man of culture, I see. Thank you!
@@ithinkicanwrite thank you for making these! I just finished the show and these make me feel a little better
@@TheAwesomeAnon The show definitely has a bitter sweet ending, glad to be able to help!
You actually never conclusively proved omniscient and omnipresent. Omniscient would mean that she would be able to know the changes that would happen once they change the timeline.
Omnipresent would mean she would be able to at all places at all times. You even put in the fact that she had laws she can't break stuck as being in earth. Or even more so, knowing and being in each Janet.
Also apathetic doesn't mean malevolent. It is a question of scale. Since she does not personally feel the problems of others, again shown in your own thesis, she doesn't feel the pain. Do feel pain for the harm caused to plants or animals in your existence.
This is especially the case with your second point which is playing a Christian or western morality onto the character. Again the character obeys the law that was placed on her.
I think if she's a Goddess ... then she already knows.
I think she is neutral, however you bring up good points. Her uncaring nature like not ending wars or stuff like that is very evil sounding, however she is supposed to be impartial and is not supposed to meddle in human affairs. However, judges should care about people, since they have to choose a verdict on a defendant, Judges should be thoughtful and considerate about their actions and stuff like that. The judge is seen to have scene where she is actually thoughtful and thinks that people can be good, like that scene when Micheal tries to convince the judge that people can be good if they try to be, even though Brent was should to be bad, she thought Micheal was right. The real problem with the judge isn't her being evil or good, It's her being Lazy.
I think all people are good as Michael states it around season four and the judge is one of them.
I don't understand why i really like this character right now.
Indeed, I think she is the most well-balanced person of the serie and the most powerful as she can erase humanity.
However in the end she proves she has a higher purpose: she found a compromise between the two opposite forces: on the one hand Michael and the good ones and on the other hands Shawn and the bad guys.
Plus, she has a sense of righteousness that reminds me of upper beings: God for the Christians, or simply Love for all humans.
Thank you for the video and the comments, it's really helpful 🙉
Cool new channel name
Thank you!!
i think the difference between the demon and the judge is that the judge is more open minded to discussion but the demon are not and always manipulate the discussions to their favour.
The judge, being immortal, is beyond the polarity of good and evil, since given enough time any moral value becomes its opposite, just like disco music 🕺
She is not immortal, she is the anthropomorphic representation of the element Hydrogen. She has been around the longest. But hydrogen with break apart too one day.
Considering that she was willing to change the system once Shawn agreed, she probably isn’t fully evil.
I agree with the conclusion that we cannot apply our concepts of morality to a god-like being like The Judge, we can't simply assume that she works with our same framework of social hierarchy, tribalism, and most important, life span. A god-like being doesn't need to believe in retribution because she is the ultimate form of existence, no matter what she does, she will keep existing, and she doesn't need to believe in empathy, because all beings around her will exist for an infinitely small amout of her time, they will be present for the blink of an eye, no matter what she does (unless she makes them immortal I guess), so why bother making them feel good?
What I am inclined to believe is that she is just a regular being personality wise, much like us humans, she has existed for all time, she has seen it all, and she is desensitized and deattached from everything around her due to the above, but just like us humans, she has the ability to feel emotions, and be reminded (on her self chosen bliss) that although she has all the time there is, she can still take a few moments to care for others
allowing evil is by definition benevolent freewill is an important factor in any beings life. am omnipotent being could choose to end suffering, pain and all that goes along with life and make everyone robots but that would be melevelant dictatorship. an all powerful, all knowing, all present being would be evil if it chose to not grant free will. a consequence of free will is that there are consequences to some actions. and that there are negative outcomes of all choices in life
For me, a person who hasn't really watched the entirety of the series but has an idea on how things go (but fr though I need to watch the whole damn show at some point), the judge (or any judge at my pov) was never meant to be good nor evil in the first place, but a neutral. However, I agree that she should've taken action and that her actions are pretty questionable. Still though, I see her to be the embodiment of true neutrality, plus, the way I see it at least, her job is just to decide which is which and what is what so idk.
I feel like this goes along with matpat's theory that Michael is being tortured
Having the ability to know things at will, and being all-knowing are different. I could slap myself in the face near-instantly, at any time. Does my face hurt? No.
The judge is neither omnipotent or omniscient. She cannot get to earth without the doorman's key and can't wipe out earth without her button which she must manually retrieve
I feel like when you live for aeons as a god like being, without any true "insight" into what it is like to be a human, the concept of morality can become obsolete. But you are right, our understanding of morality is very human-centric and we will always fail to see how other beings would perceive philosophical concepts
Even if she is evil, shes one of the best darn characters.
Along with all of the cast. Besides Trevor.
Hated the dude.
To the judge human or even demon are just atoms so she is neither benevolent nor evil. Kind of like you reset your game system. Your game characters are still there and you are neither evil nor benevolent.
I don't think our morality would be applicable to the judge, no. Firstly, her omniscience doesn't extend to people's thoughts and feelings as far as I understand, so even knowing everything about what a person did and went through during their life, she couldn't possibly understand what prompted their actions, their train of thought, or the suffering they might be enduring.
Being forever-years-old also means she has no way of empathising or sympathising with humans and our oh so short-lived mortal plights: she ultimately doesn't see humans as beings she can relate to, but almost as characters that sometimes act for her entertainment. If she imprints herself on humans, as we do with animals or dolls or characters, looking at us through her pov, we can see why she thinks we should be able to do only good, to take the logical decisions she would, and why, as we don't, as we cause trouble and interact with each other in problematic ways the She Personally wouldn't do, she doesn't show compassion. We don't follow the almost arbitrary rules that seem obvious to her, so why should she care? Do we expect spiders to know they shouldn't get too close to our hands? No but we still kill them if they do, or at least take them away and disrupt their day and maybe put them in a dangerous situation that we don't care about, because we are on a different level and we hold the power in the situation. Does that make us morally bad? Is it a sign of evil? I don't think so. Also, the fact that they could make the judge see from their perspective, something she hadn't even consider doing in her long long existence, says a lot about how distant she was from humanity.
In conclusion (wow this turned out gigantic lol) I don't think she's omni benevolent because I don't think she's truly omniscient, or at least her life experiences don't let her truly relate to humans enough to understand us and so she isn't truly evil either. Thus, our morality doesn't apply to her because she wasn't doing anything that would be evil to her and those like her (if there were anyone like her) but she also wouldn't go out of her way to help us because she never even saw the need to do it
She's not human she just doesn't care either way.
If The Judge was Omnipotent she wouldn't need tests.
Man you got the first part all wrong. The judge clearly isn't all-knowing, at least not until she lives on Earth for a bit (and even then, she only knows what she experienced in like 3 countries or whatever it was). Then, immediately after that, she's open to the new experiment which she ensures is carried out fairly. Not evil.
And she's not all-powerful either. Anyone could press the kill all humans button, it's just a thing she has that was pretty easily taken from her.
It is never stated The Judge came up with the points system. In fact, she is a victim of it, in the same way, a real judge has to enforce bad laws.
I saw the judge as maybe amoral, as in having a complete absence of morality. Like she's the cold chaos of the universe, made flesh. But I'll hear you out.
Wait if the judge knows everything then the judge knows how it all end So everything the judge does actually puts them on the path the ends with their happy endings?
I would say that I am not a fan of that theory because it nullifies most, if not all of the character's interactions and personality, as well as all the hardships experienced by our protagonists.
@@ithinkicanwrite so you don't think she's omniscient?
WHOA! The Judge is shown to be NOT being omniscient: She doesn't know what happens in TV shows until she watches them and doesn't know the condition of Earth until she visits, and doesn't know which Janet has the clicker. She doesn't know who the people showing up in her court are, she asks to be filled in.
Claim 1 BUSTED!
Claim 2: Omnipotent? Powerful yes, but not all-powerful. She is shown to have control over a local sector like Earth but is not shown to have the ability to overhaul much larger things like the formation of the universe itself as she IS Hydrogen, an element created AFTER the Big Bang.
Conclusion: If the universe is a play she is also but an actor playing her part.
Medium people in real life are always actually evil. You don't stand on the sidelines and witness injustice and do nothing. The whole torture concept is evil, and letting it exist in the first place is evil.
I also thought that all the Places were evil. The Good place clearly sounds like a bureaucratic hellscape. The Medium place and accounting are my idea of hell.
And the Bad place is actually the one I can relate to the most, with people actually interacting in a friendly manner, being sarcastic and truthful about their sadistic motivations (not that I condone the latter). I love how they too are tortured by the Fake Good Place.
The Bad Place even roast the Pirates of the Caribbean series. And they roast the humans. Their approach is in your face, whereas the approach of the Finale Good Place is one that takes a long time and cajoles bad people into thinking they are good and can change gradually.
This is the same difference between survivors of abuse who refuse to give narcissists the benefit of the doubt, and psychologists who purport to slowly cajole them into a better person.
I think the Bad Place is the most conducive to conscious self-betterment, and it's also the most hilariously random. I never laughed to hard as when Chainsaw bear made not one but two jumpscare apparitions. Mondays, amirite ?
I don't think the good place judge is inherently evil but rather that being a judge dooms her to being evil by default. Authority in a non competitive system is predicated on violence and as such all authority is inherently evil in its inception. This is a fundamental of all systems of non competitive authority. The only way to ensure authority is not evil is to allow competing systems of authority to emerge and let participants in a system constantly choose which system they want to participate in.
Except she shows that she isn't completely omnipresent, omnipotent or omnibenevolent. It doesn't matter if she is close to any of these, omni means ALL, so any exception removes omni. Still evil, but not omni so the question doesn't matter. Her enjoyment of suffering does show she is evil, absolute is another matter.
Omnibenevolent is certainly not the case, and there are limitations or obstacles to her being omnipresent and omnipotent due to it being a tv show and her not being actual God, certainly. However, the question matters regardless of her not being absolutely evil, which was not the point.
You are thinking seeing the judge from a judeo- christian point of view, when they say in that is not how ir works. Is more like greek mithology, powerful beings, but not perfect.
The analysis of the character is not as a result of a Judaeo-Christian interpretation.
Nice
I've always been confused on why benevolence is a crucial criteria for a higher being. I would assume that they would be indifferent.
To be fair, the Judge struck me as Neutral or maybe even good in certain ways. First she is like Janet, born from the Start and having more knowledge then a Normal Human. She will exist till the End of everything and so Death and Life itself should be a more unkwon subject for her. Sure she maybe knows the Definition of Life and Death, but this does not mean she understands it in a way a Human does.
Second, the Rules and Point system seemed to have worked from the Start with Humans, it was only later on that it no longer worked and it would need an update. But since the Judge herself never really was looking into the Human world and no one else noticed it and had gone to her about that problem, she never noticed it.
Third, When she realized the Problem she wanted to restart the universe itself anew, which might sounds like the Ultimate end for others, but is maybe only like a System backup for a pc in the Judges view. Sure we would precieve it as something catastrophic, but only cause we are Humans and our lives end.
Fourth, Micheal and Janet when the Time came for the Test if the others could become better Humans, metteled so much with them, The Judge even thought it was against the Agreement closed a Eye for them. Sure the Demons also meddeled in the End, but it was clear that she was somewhat stepping out of her Neutral zone that moment. I also think that the One bridge scene was a bit wierd, she could have just teleported to the Other side of the Stuff Janet spawned, but choose the Time wasting clearing option instead. What makes me think she wanted them to go back to earth.
In Generell i saw her as a Neutral/ Good charakter, never really Evil. Sure her Moves might look drastic, but not really when you remember what she is and represents.
I'm clearly very late to this video, but I thought I'd share my thoughts. In a way, I don't think she's truly omnipotent. You did mention some of her limitations, like the doorman's key, but I feel like there's more. If she was omnipotent, wouldn't she be able to summon the button she needed to reset Earth instead of having to go through each Janet to find it? What's more, if she was omnipotent, why would she even NEED a button? It would seem she can't freely control everything in the world, sometimes she needs something else to do so. Maybe I'm merely misunderstanding the concept though. I feel like the afterlife of the good place doesn't have one omnipotent being (unless you count Derek which I'd totally believe is omnipotent), I feel there's multiple beings with different capabilities and different things they can control, but of course the judge is higher in the chain.
Aside from that, I also don't know if she could count as all knowing / omniscient. It sounds like she has the potential to be, but she is not. She actually had to visit Earth herself to realise how screwed it was, and she didn't even know racism was a thing until that point! So I feel that point is a bit debatable. About her being evil... she could be, but she could also be amoral partly caused by her lack of understanding of some nuances and stuff. But you did bring up some points that do seem to make her more evil... However, since in my opinion she's not omniscient, not fixing the system before because she enjoys their suffering isn't enough of a reason for me, I think she just truly didn't understand the flaws.
Buuut that's just a theory!
A Gold Star for you. Yes.
Wait are you Jason? your voice sounds like jason yow homie like chidi teached you?
Arguably, DEREK at the end has more power than The Judge. DEREK controls and manipulates existence as he is the nexus of all things, from what we see, The Judge only oversees life on Earth.
her attitude i think, can be related to her neutral status. much like the real good place architects, she couldn't fully fathom mankind's complicated lives. (and her choice of viewing certainly doesn't help.) so when her trip to earth, and the success of the test showed that the system was "forked up," the easiest methid eas to just start over. she lacked true empathy for humanity, and it took an improved system to change her mind. a system designed by those very same flawed humans that she wanted to just delete for the convenience. true evil, not really. woefully unable to fully empathize and understand, absolutely.
When considering gods and immortals and their morality you have to see it through infinity;meaning they can bring about unlimited good to the world and also limitless evil so wether they are good or bad should be judged as to what they have done more of good or evil.(look from their beginning of their existence to the present as you don’t know the future)
I have a Theory Jason Mendoza is the owner and who is talking in the video
;)
I always thought the judge was evil. She’s weird and hates the people who SAVE THE FREAKING UNIVERSE
It’s not that black and white though. She’s not evil but her priorities are doing as little work as possible and watching tv. Technically she’s just restarting the universe with some minor tweaks to avoid changing the point system and everyone will be reborn but with a no memory of their previous life. The crew isn’t really saving the universe but trying to find another way so they can stick together and change the way people can get into heaven. If the judge was completely good then she wouldn’t be able to be a judge but because she even says she doesn’t want to help them directly because that would be taking sides but she does give them multiple fair chances to make their case.
Why Jason is teaching philosophy in this video
I consider taking a neutral stand to be a bad thing because even if you're not casing any harm directly if you're letting it happen when you could stop it... you're not great
The judge is a representation of the evil of indifference. Indifference to evil always benefits evil. The Judge isn't evil per se, she simply doesn't care what happens to humanity one way or the other and therefore evil is left unchecked. *Spoiler alert* In the final few episodes, the Judge does consent to a new and improved system and doesn't put up much resistance to the idea. Don't get me wrong though, indifference to evil always benefits evil.
I couldn't have put it better myself! That's very well put, Neal, thank you for that!
I believe it is the same indifference that leads her to accept a new, better system once the arguments are made for it, but without a positive influence, as you said, it is evil that the judge is indifferent to.
@@ithinkicanwrite Exactly. The banality of evil. People stand by and let evil happen not from malice but from indifference. I think this is what the Judge character is intended to personify.
Yeah Man But Why is Jason Teaching Philosophy in this video
Can you talk about the good place committee?
It’s not that black and white though. She’s not evil but her priorities are doing as little work as possible and watching tv. Technically she’s just restarting the universe with some minor tweaks to avoid changing the point system and everyone will be reborn but with a no memory of their previous life. The crew isn’t really saving the universe but trying to find another way so they can stick together and change the way people can get into heaven. If the judge was completely good then she wouldn’t be able to be a judge but because she even says she doesn’t want to help them directly because that would be taking sides but she does give them multiple fair chances to make their case. If she was really evil she would put up more of a fight instead of thinking of compromises time after time. Not to mention by the end she got alittle attached to the main characters.
she is just lawful neutral
When we say someone is neutral, their ignorance almost always leans towards the evil.
That is incredibly well put! Agreed!
This reminds me of the Thanos argument.
The question of whether the judge can be held to put morality while being an immortal otherworldly being is interesting. I say that because many people will argue “no we can’t”, but then those same people will turn around and judge the demon characters for their actions, particularly Michael. You could argue the judge is even worse they they are despite them being the torturers. But why do we as viewers judge the demon characters more? Is it because we know demons can change, as evidence by Michael? If that’s the case than we can still judge the judge by our morality because she is no different than Michael, just more powerful. I mean he even says he truly didn’t understand humans and their emotions until he went down to earth, and it’s true he didn’t. Just something to think about.
Because of two things:
1. The demons (atleast the higher ups) knew the points system was broken and didn't care.
2. The demons are actively malicious and evil, the judge isn't compassionate but still wants the universe to work in a moral way
I don't think that the judge is evil, just woefully irresponsible, apathetic, and somewhat lazy.
So I wonder if having the ability to be omniscient is the equal to be omniscient. Further the scene with all the Janets proves she has limited ability of omniscient capacity as she has to manually enter and observe all janets one at a time.
I dont think she was evil, she constantly gives our beloved cast chance after chance
And shes described as a nearly omnipotent being that is as old as time itself, so she wasn’t evil in my idea rather a part of the cog of the broken system that was eventually fixed
Shes not evil in the same way that the accountants in the accounting office aren’t evil, rather just broken beings that didn’t know how bad things were until pointed out
The Judge isn't evil. She is indifferent, just like the universe. She is The Universe personified and anthropomorphized.
You convinced me
Yesss! I am glad I was able to! :)
I like how you use philosophy to prove a point in the good place.
Thank you, Xavier! Pretty proud of that as well!
Wasn't the whole point of the the later seasons that It was impossible for non-humans to evaluate if a human had been good or bad?
Also the problem with "The Problem of Evil" is that omnipotent has an self negation, making the idea of omnipotens flaw to begin with.
i.e
Omnipotent being creates a block that is unliftable. Can the being lift said block? either scenario could lead to an outcomes where said being is incapable of doing something, ergo, not omnipotent.
Here comes the kicker, at least for me, if we treat said being capable been in a superposition, ie always been both capable and incapable of everything (actually making it omnipotent) this throws "The problem of evil" on it's head.
I never liked her to beginning
But I think she is neutral
Is the farmer evil in the eyes of his livestock?
The Judge wasn't supposed to be good or bad. She had a good and bad traits making her a neutral character. Also her comment during Elenor's test about where Jason and Tahani would be put in the bad place proves that there are different severities for people with different scores.
I have a couple of issues here.
First: The judge isn't omnipotent, otherwise she would have had the ability to go to earth or otherwise get everyone back to her place.
Second: you said the point system is evil, because it just puts people in two categories, the good or bad place, but in fact there is a third one: the neutral one and even within the places there are nuances, you even had the clip in your video where the judge said she has to decide where in the bad place she puts tahani and jason, so there are 'better' and 'worse' good and bad places depending on how you lived your life.
Third: Her job as a judge means, she is not to be moral, but to judge fairly within the system she is acting. In a classical Governement, judges have to act within the laws given to them, not change them
So much for "fairness and impartiality"
Film theory? pshhh hardly know em,
i only know "I Think I Can Write"
Hahahah this is a good one! Thank you!
I'm going to have to print this and put it on the fridge hahah
Not evil. Not good. Not a girl. No one ever claimed she was Omni-benevolent.
I think the problem you have here is defining good and evil and what it means to be omnibenevolent. Under your definition, there is no free will. Everything would be predetermined and no one would have a choice. Without free will, are you omnibenevolent? Is it more kind to allow people to decide for themselves and grow from their mistakes, or is it more kind to force them down a path negating the opportunity for growth?
Does the good place talk about god at some point?
This video has a fundamental misunderstanding of delegation. Judges don't make laws. The Good Place/Bad Place divide is NOT up to The Judge. No more than bad laws are enforced by police and judges. The root of the problem is where the point system originated, which is NEVER DISCUSSED IN THE SHOW.
The crew literally argues to THE Judge that the system is bad and The Judge ultimately agrees.
I kept thinking throughout watching the show, starting somewhere in season 2, that they should be administering the point system to the system itself and everyone who actively participates in it.
Applying the system that the governed have created, upon the governed. Very meta!
That would be quite interesting to see, in a scenario where they all must live through their human lives and see what happens at the end, kinda like the Judge did for a while!
@@ithinkicanwrite or just give them points for what they do as a judge or accountants or demons or whatnot
@@joshuahillerup4290 That could work as well, but then you need a points system for the afterlife. And, given they don't... really end up anywhere afterwards (except for the finale when the last door is created) there would have been no need for it.
@@ithinkicanwrite it could be used as an argument for why the system isn't good, and the problem is bigger than just the complexity of modern human life
@@joshuahillerup4290 Certainly it could be! A lot of the problems with the old system boiled down to 'Proportionality', as the video explains. A limited lifespan met with an eternal punishment doesn't make much sense.
Your whole argument works only if your consider the judge conventionally omnicient. She's most definetly not for 2 reasons : 1)she as by default no knowlege of stuff and needs to chose in some way to get to the information (in practice she's mostly ignorent) 2) shes does not have infinite inteligence so even with all data from the universe she could not interpert it.