"Strangers Drowning" by Larissa MacFarquhar exemplifies a widespread and deeply problematic way of thinking about morality that needs to be challenged and rejected
What’s interesting is that MacFarquhar does ask the right question at one point – “Is your life your own, to spend as you like, or do you owe some of it to other people?” – but then proceeds to sweep that question under the rug.
Great read. I was thinking of this conflict between altruism and flourishing while watching the show The Good Place. (Spoiler alert!)
The basic premise of the show is that, throughout their lives, people do good and bad actions, which when you die are then added up to a final score that determines if you get to the “good place” (i.e., heaven) or the “bad place” (i.e., hell).
Of course, the moral framework determining “good” and “bad” is altruistic and that’s never really questioned at any point. There's a lot of emphasis on personal moral growth, but always within an altruistic framework.
There is, however, an episode (S03E08, "Don't Let the Good Life Pass You By") where this conflict between altruism and flourishing is perfectly illustrated. The main characters, back on Earth, meet Doug Forcett. Doug Forcett is a bit of a celebrity in the afterlife because he somehow figured out the point system and lives his life to maximize his points. The result is that he basically lives as an hermit, without modern technology, and constantly sacrificing for other people in all kinds of ways. The episode makes fun of him, and it’s made every clear throughout the episode that he’s basically a complete push-over (he even gets consistently bullied by some local kid, always giving in to his most outrageous demands in order to “do good”) and that his life is impractical and not enviable in the slightest. But his moral worth is still emphasized. Because if altruism is the standard, you can't say that he's being less moral than someone who's less altruistic but has a more flourishing life.
Yet, despite being held as the ultimate saint, even he (the main characters learned) doesn’t have enough points to go to the “good place” when he dies. That prompts the main characters to consider that the point system is flawed if not even Doug Forcett can meet the standard. Since Aristotle is name-dropped a few times throughout the show, this is where I thought that the main characters would start incorporating individual flourishing into the point system.
But the actual explanation that was given in subsequent episodes for why not even Doug Forcett could get into the “good place,” despite being the ultimate “do-gooder,” is that his choices were still negatively impacting a lot of people through higher-order effects that arise from the technologically advanced, globally connected nature of the modern world. This turned out to be why, for the last few centuries, no single human had been “good” enough to get into the “good place.”
So even the most altruistic person imaginable was still not being “good” enough by altruistic moral standards.
Thanks for letting me know about this show. What you describe is exactly the issue. I wonder what the viewer is supposed to take away from the show. Glad you enjoyed my article, Rodrigo, and for the detailed comment.
Great essay thanks. I've also always thought about the many who accept altruism as "moral", know that they can't live up to it, and then decide that immorality, and nihilism is all that is open to them. Because they now accept themselves as selfish sinners, they continue down the road to self destruction and eventually evil.
What’s interesting is that MacFarquhar does ask the right question at one point – “Is your life your own, to spend as you like, or do you owe some of it to other people?” – but then proceeds to sweep that question under the rug.
Great read. I was thinking of this conflict between altruism and flourishing while watching the show The Good Place. (Spoiler alert!)
The basic premise of the show is that, throughout their lives, people do good and bad actions, which when you die are then added up to a final score that determines if you get to the “good place” (i.e., heaven) or the “bad place” (i.e., hell).
Of course, the moral framework determining “good” and “bad” is altruistic and that’s never really questioned at any point. There's a lot of emphasis on personal moral growth, but always within an altruistic framework.
There is, however, an episode (S03E08, "Don't Let the Good Life Pass You By") where this conflict between altruism and flourishing is perfectly illustrated. The main characters, back on Earth, meet Doug Forcett. Doug Forcett is a bit of a celebrity in the afterlife because he somehow figured out the point system and lives his life to maximize his points. The result is that he basically lives as an hermit, without modern technology, and constantly sacrificing for other people in all kinds of ways. The episode makes fun of him, and it’s made every clear throughout the episode that he’s basically a complete push-over (he even gets consistently bullied by some local kid, always giving in to his most outrageous demands in order to “do good”) and that his life is impractical and not enviable in the slightest. But his moral worth is still emphasized. Because if altruism is the standard, you can't say that he's being less moral than someone who's less altruistic but has a more flourishing life.
Yet, despite being held as the ultimate saint, even he (the main characters learned) doesn’t have enough points to go to the “good place” when he dies. That prompts the main characters to consider that the point system is flawed if not even Doug Forcett can meet the standard. Since Aristotle is name-dropped a few times throughout the show, this is where I thought that the main characters would start incorporating individual flourishing into the point system.
But the actual explanation that was given in subsequent episodes for why not even Doug Forcett could get into the “good place,” despite being the ultimate “do-gooder,” is that his choices were still negatively impacting a lot of people through higher-order effects that arise from the technologically advanced, globally connected nature of the modern world. This turned out to be why, for the last few centuries, no single human had been “good” enough to get into the “good place.”
So even the most altruistic person imaginable was still not being “good” enough by altruistic moral standards.
Thanks for letting me know about this show. What you describe is exactly the issue. I wonder what the viewer is supposed to take away from the show. Glad you enjoyed my article, Rodrigo, and for the detailed comment.
Great essay thanks. I've also always thought about the many who accept altruism as "moral", know that they can't live up to it, and then decide that immorality, and nihilism is all that is open to them. Because they now accept themselves as selfish sinners, they continue down the road to self destruction and eventually evil.
Sadly true, but logical in its own way. Glad you liked the article.