Article Data

URL/PhilPapers Link:

https://philpapers.org/rec/SMUTEO-4

Authors

Aaron Smuts

Abstract

I distill three somewhat interrelated approaches to the ethical criticism of humor: (1) attitude-based theories, (2) merited-response theories, and (3) emotional responsibility theories. I direct the brunt of my effort at showing the limitations of the attitudinal endorsement theory by presenting new criticisms of Ronald de Sousa’s position. Then, I turn to assess the strengths of the other two approaches, showing that that their major formulations implicitly require the problematic attitudinal endorsement theory. I argue for an effects-mediated responsibility theory , holding that the strongest ethical criticism that can be made of our sense of humor is that it might indicate some omission on our part. This omission could only be culpable in so far as a particular joke could do harm to oneself or others. In response to Ted Cohen’s doubts that such a mechanism of harm is forthcoming, I argue that the primary vehicle of the harmful effects of humor is laughter.

Video Review

video review premiering soon

Reviewer Reports

nogre0:

Rating: 78

energydahamter:

Rating: 83

k_pars:

Rating: 78

RaDerpin:

Rating: 83

Wyllt42:

Rating: 50

banana_bunnyy:

Rating: 38

reclusey_:

Rating: 75