"they make their art better than it would have been if they didn’t challenge these conventions. "
in my idiolect:-- all social acts are worldbuilding, so, is the re-framing humour surfs for good or evil? So does it, re-moralise, de-moralise or a-moralise? What type of world does a joke re-build? debuild, a-build?
Also What's evil? Narcissistic parasitic world-building would be my best bet, i.e. world-building without empathy. An immoral joke with empathy is better than a moral joke punching down.
This is from a meta-moral POV. The immoral joke can still be moral. We could infinitely regress at this point, unless you'd like to lasso this recursively by some kind of taboo?
"So those who take offense to the immorality in a joke and judge it to be less funny on that basis have their capacity for amusement impaired, and shouldn’t be taken as authorities on how funny the joke in question is."
I'm offended when someone decides it is clever and amusing to wear a shirt emblazoned with the logo 'Camp Auschwitz'. My offense is indeed incompatible with finding anything amusing in such a display. I'll posit that anyone who finds this reference to Auschwitz funny is betraying quite a bit about themselves, but neither cleverness nor humor are on display.
Another way to say it- depraved people laugh, genuinely, at depravity.
And when they do, it ain't funny.
Feel free to make your argument to the contrary.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you believe you have a sense of humor. Let's also posit you operate (explicity or implicity) according to a moral philosophy.
You will find some things fall outside your framework of 'moral'. Some actions by other people you will find outright offensive, and you will also not find them funny. (For the sake of simplicity, we'll leave the unconscious elements of morality and humor, and the cultural variability of morality and humor, aside. But unconscious reactions and cultural influences matter, of course. A lot.).
Your moral framework, your experience of feeling offended, and your lack of amusement, will all cohabitate comfortably in your conscious mind. When you judge something to meet your standard of humor, it aligns, or falls within the parameters of, your moral framework. And it all just makes so much sense.
But you reserve that privilege for yourself, it seems. Other people, in your estimation, are deficient in that regard.
Funny coinicidence, isn't it?
You possess both superior capabilities for moral reasoning AND capacious comedic aesthetics. From that lofty perch, you can only shake your head at the hoi poloi, benighted souls who let their moralism stunt their appreciation for the edgy insights of risque performance.
In conclusion,
“Well, art is art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water! And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now, uh... now you tell me what you know.” (G. Marx)
Having worked in medicine, as a spine/trauma surgeon for many years, as well a law part time as an attorney, I admit to thinking some very dark topics are “funny”, that in my ‘real world’ I would view in extremely poor taste if acted out/acted upon in everyday life/circumstances.
Being raised in a Catholic and Irish-Italian family I and my brother and sister developed black humor, especially with regards to death early on as kids. Funerals and wakes were prime targets.
What about dealbreaker joke? "Dealbreakers and the Work of Immoral Artists" recently by by Ian Stoner
https://newworkinphilosophy.substack.com/p/ian-stoner-saint-paul-college-dealbreakers
"they make their art better than it would have been if they didn’t challenge these conventions. "
in my idiolect:-- all social acts are worldbuilding, so, is the re-framing humour surfs for good or evil? So does it, re-moralise, de-moralise or a-moralise? What type of world does a joke re-build? debuild, a-build?
Also What's evil? Narcissistic parasitic world-building would be my best bet, i.e. world-building without empathy. An immoral joke with empathy is better than a moral joke punching down.
This is from a meta-moral POV. The immoral joke can still be moral. We could infinitely regress at this point, unless you'd like to lasso this recursively by some kind of taboo?
"So those who take offense to the immorality in a joke and judge it to be less funny on that basis have their capacity for amusement impaired, and shouldn’t be taken as authorities on how funny the joke in question is."
I'm offended when someone decides it is clever and amusing to wear a shirt emblazoned with the logo 'Camp Auschwitz'. My offense is indeed incompatible with finding anything amusing in such a display. I'll posit that anyone who finds this reference to Auschwitz funny is betraying quite a bit about themselves, but neither cleverness nor humor are on display.
Another way to say it- depraved people laugh, genuinely, at depravity.
And when they do, it ain't funny.
Feel free to make your argument to the contrary.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you believe you have a sense of humor. Let's also posit you operate (explicity or implicity) according to a moral philosophy.
You will find some things fall outside your framework of 'moral'. Some actions by other people you will find outright offensive, and you will also not find them funny. (For the sake of simplicity, we'll leave the unconscious elements of morality and humor, and the cultural variability of morality and humor, aside. But unconscious reactions and cultural influences matter, of course. A lot.).
Your moral framework, your experience of feeling offended, and your lack of amusement, will all cohabitate comfortably in your conscious mind. When you judge something to meet your standard of humor, it aligns, or falls within the parameters of, your moral framework. And it all just makes so much sense.
But you reserve that privilege for yourself, it seems. Other people, in your estimation, are deficient in that regard.
Funny coinicidence, isn't it?
You possess both superior capabilities for moral reasoning AND capacious comedic aesthetics. From that lofty perch, you can only shake your head at the hoi poloi, benighted souls who let their moralism stunt their appreciation for the edgy insights of risque performance.
In conclusion,
“Well, art is art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water! And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now, uh... now you tell me what you know.” (G. Marx)
Having worked in medicine, as a spine/trauma surgeon for many years, as well a law part time as an attorney, I admit to thinking some very dark topics are “funny”, that in my ‘real world’ I would view in extremely poor taste if acted out/acted upon in everyday life/circumstances.
Being raised in a Catholic and Irish-Italian family I and my brother and sister developed black humor, especially with regards to death early on as kids. Funerals and wakes were prime targets.