Ooh, I really like this analysis of Jason as a kind of debunking of the Christian "original sin" narrative. Being "uncorrupted" by Knowledge Of Good And Evil doesn't get you a free ride into the Good Place, it just means your behavior isn't checked by any sense of "this is a harmful thing and you shouldn't do it."
...and so now he's getting Chidi's lessons on How To Be Ethical, but I'm not sure those are going to reach the root of the problem, because there's a basic foundation that's missing. Like, maybe by now Jason could put "should I set my friend's stuff on fire?" through a flowchart and come up with "no, that is Immoral," but that's the kind of problem you should be able to work out without the flowchart! (And if you do it anyway, it's because you're angry and consciously want to hurt someone.)
(It's the opposite of Chidi's problem -- that guy has a foundation of caring and decency, but he puts it through so much overthinking and rationalizing that he can talk himself into doing the wrong thing because it was the only one he could get through the flowchart.)
You say you don't see it as indifference, but then you describe it as a "complete absence of consideration", and to my mind those are the same thing....
I do think Janet is genuinely enjoying herself, at least sometimes, and I don't ever remember thinking she was being actively hurt. What gets to me is that their dynamic only works so well because Janet is fundamentally non-human. Jason's failure to consider things isn't going to affect her in situations where she didn't have subroutines for those things in the first place.
It's like...if you were dating Superman, he would be completely unhurt if you punched him, right? If Lois tries to beat him up once in a while, it's good practice/exercise for her and might feel like a relaxing massage for him -- that's a cute interspecies bonding scenario. But it wouldn't be cute if you hit your date while failing (refusing?) to recognize that he was Superman. (Say, if you kept calling him a human even though he said "not a human" every time it came up.)
no subject
...and so now he's getting Chidi's lessons on How To Be Ethical, but I'm not sure those are going to reach the root of the problem, because there's a basic foundation that's missing. Like, maybe by now Jason could put "should I set my friend's stuff on fire?" through a flowchart and come up with "no, that is Immoral," but that's the kind of problem you should be able to work out without the flowchart! (And if you do it anyway, it's because you're angry and consciously want to hurt someone.)
(It's the opposite of Chidi's problem -- that guy has a foundation of caring and decency, but he puts it through so much overthinking and rationalizing that he can talk himself into doing the wrong thing because it was the only one he could get through the flowchart.)
You say you don't see it as indifference, but then you describe it as a "complete absence of consideration", and to my mind those are the same thing....
I do think Janet is genuinely enjoying herself, at least sometimes, and I don't ever remember thinking she was being actively hurt. What gets to me is that their dynamic only works so well because Janet is fundamentally non-human. Jason's failure to consider things isn't going to affect her in situations where she didn't have subroutines for those things in the first place.
It's like...if you were dating Superman, he would be completely unhurt if you punched him, right? If Lois tries to beat him up once in a while, it's good practice/exercise for her and might feel like a relaxing massage for him -- that's a cute interspecies bonding scenario. But it wouldn't be cute if you hit your date while failing (refusing?) to recognize that he was Superman. (Say, if you kept calling him a human even though he said "not a human" every time it came up.)