An Investigation into Comedy and Humour
While humor is no doubt an important part of how people connect with each other and entertain themselves, compared to other interpersonal phenomena, humor is less often critically observed; while music and visual art have whole academic fields (musicology and art history) dedicated exploring their history, purpose, and philosophical meaning, comedy is only studied on the margins of other fields. After all, everyone knows explaining a joke is a sure way to ruin it. In this debate, we will consider some questions about humor that generally go unasked.
Comedy is enjoyed by almost everyone, but different people consider very different things to be funny. These differences are observable between broad cultures, time periods, demographics, and of course individuals. The reason different groups of people find different things funny, however, has no clearly understood answer. It feels unsatisfying to conclude that comedy is anything that makes people laugh; while there is great variation in what people find funny, there are no doubt common trends, which suggest that what is and isn't funny is not random. But the questions of why we have senses of humor at all and why our senses of humor differ have had little thought put toward them.
People also have widely varied views of comedy as it relates to humorless thought. Some see humor as superfluous and mostly unrelated to one's earnest beliefs, while others view it as a window to the soul, or even a mechanism to change the soul. This debate has recently become very relevant to cultural politics. Comedy is often directly political in countless comedic entertainments like The Daily Show and the Babylon Bee that contain earnest political commentary. But aside from intentional political editorializing, the real or perceived effect comedians have on their fans' ethics has contributed to the cultural phenomena of canceled culture. Comedians like Dave Chappele and Kathy Griffin have found themselves in the position of hero or villain for different sections of society due to the moral implications of their work. Additionally, in the deep corners of the internet memes are an important element of many radical political communities, and many analysts see these memes as tools of radicalization which can lead to real world violence. Of course comedy can be a vehicle for legitimate beliefs; most political satire is transparently intended to be persuasive. However, what someone finds funny is a product of their subconscious, so the idea of holding people responsible for what they find funny is objectionable to many people. The question of humor's power or lack thereof is the central issue in this cultural divide.
Why do you think we have senses of humor?
What causes different people and groups of people to experience humor differently?
Is it possible for something to be objectively funny (or not funny)? Should a person avoid overindulging in comedy? Is comedy useful?damaging or both?
Can a joke be immoral? Can it be immoral to find a certain joke funny?
If you can judge a person morally for their sense of humor, can you then also judge a culture morally for its collective sense of humor?
If so, is an immoral sense of humor a cause or symptom of immorality? Should any sort of corrective action be taken?