kinda, but I want to see the result with no interest in their motivations. I don’t care if you’re a kindly gramma who bakes cookies for the neighbor kids if that is outweighed by your church donations that (unbeknownst to gramma) fund hate groups. Nor do I care if you spitefully convince your county/borough to designate your hated neighbor’s property a ‘wetland’ such that the land loses value and can’t be developed.
Perhaps the Swiss have better social safety nets? The U.S. loves the idea that you can lift yourself by your own bootstraps (you can’t), and loves rugged individualism (you are alone). If an individual falls – or feels like they’ve fallen – there’s not much help. There’s guns, though.
Quality of Life impact: How much damage (or benefit) their actions (work, lifestyle, whatever) have done for the net quality of life across the globe. I figure anyone who drives to work is probably doing a little more harm than good, but perhaps they make up for it by being a good school teacher or something, whereas AI coders might make things worse … but mostly I’d like to see if ANY world leaders score in the positive.
I disagree that the systems are the same. On the sandwich bit, yes, they might, but on the flip side they are opposite. The Good Place voided deeds done for the purpose of getting ‘points’, for example. Further, in The Good Place you lost points for doing things out of spite/malice/hate, and my system does not care.
In my system, as long as the result improves overall well being, it counts. Technically, a serial killer could have a really high score if they tortured and murdered… oh, say, people who order their underlings to cut costs such that those underlings demand faster delivery times such that delivery drivers stop trucks in the street thereby blocking traffic for everyone rather than waste the driver’s time by pulling into driveways. Corporate profits, baby! Fewer drivers needed! <-- the maniac killing people who are about to implement such a scheme would have a huge score.