"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)
To me, a shirt emblazoned with the logo 'Camp Auschwitz' is clearly morally offensive, but isn't particularly clever or funny. As such, it's an inappropriate example for the point you are attempting to make here. What needs to be considered instead is a joke that is both morally offensive AND a plausible candidate for being genuinely funny. That would be a concrete illustration of the clash of standards your opponent is focusing on.
"...a plausible candidate for being /genuinely funny/"
This is the rub, isn't it?
How might we designate the appropriate arbiter of /genuinely funny/? And by what consensus standards will we identify 'plausible candidates'?
My example, while you and I might agree is 'clearly morally offensive', is not deemed so by those wearing the shirts in question (you might have seen the same images as I). The individuals wearing them, and the cohort they associate with, think those shirts are a hoot and a half.
That cohort will, quite sincerely, contend that their 'joke' is both morally acceptable and the height of hilarity (all the more so when they evoke an emotional reaction from some woke libs, good times for all).
The cohort I'm referring to claim to have a moral framework, and will say those of us who don't see the wittiness of the shirt lack a sense of humor.
Let's approach this from another angle.
If something is offensive, is it always morally objectionable? Would a comedic scene that is predicated on eliciting disgust always, by definition, involve moral transgression?
I don't think so, but we often see some overlap between social norms of 'disgusting' and 'immoral'. It is not unusual for a person to express disgust at something that they deem immoral (for example, there are many who find same gender displays of affection both immoral and, to them, disgusting).
Am I required to assent to their attitudes of what is immoral and/or disgusting? Again, I don't think so. And if I'm not required to assent to their attitudes, which framework of morality obtains in our assessment of humor that is both 'immoral' and 'genuinely funny'?
I suggest that any joke that will elicit a consensus, within a given cohort, the verdict 'clearly morally offensive', will NOT also elicit a consensus within the same cohort 'plausible candidate for genuinely funny'.
Oddly, and I think this is worth reflecting upon further, a comedic item may elicit a consensus verdict 'disgusting', also be deemed hilarious, and NOT viewed as 'immoral' at all.
Perhaps a scene in which a person, viewed as unsavory in some way, maybe even reprehensible, is accidentally showered with the contents of a cesspool, after the unsavory individual has proclaimed that another person is 'a piece of shit'. Disgusting to imagine, but nothing immoral. In fact, it might be viewed as a sort of morally redeeming vignette.
"If the right people had been in charge of Nixon’s funeral, his casket would have been launched into one of those open-sewage canals that empty into the ocean just south of Los Angeles. He was a swine of a man and a jabbering dupe of a president. Nixon was so crooked that he needed servants to help him screw his pants on every morning. Even his funeral was illegal. He was queer in the deepest way. His body should have been burned in a trash bin."
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)
To me, a shirt emblazoned with the logo 'Camp Auschwitz' is clearly morally offensive, but isn't particularly clever or funny. As such, it's an inappropriate example for the point you are attempting to make here. What needs to be considered instead is a joke that is both morally offensive AND a plausible candidate for being genuinely funny. That would be a concrete illustration of the clash of standards your opponent is focusing on.
"...a plausible candidate for being /genuinely funny/"
This is the rub, isn't it?
How might we designate the appropriate arbiter of /genuinely funny/? And by what consensus standards will we identify 'plausible candidates'?
My example, while you and I might agree is 'clearly morally offensive', is not deemed so by those wearing the shirts in question (you might have seen the same images as I). The individuals wearing them, and the cohort they associate with, think those shirts are a hoot and a half.
That cohort will, quite sincerely, contend that their 'joke' is both morally acceptable and the height of hilarity (all the more so when they evoke an emotional reaction from some woke libs, good times for all).
The cohort I'm referring to claim to have a moral framework, and will say those of us who don't see the wittiness of the shirt lack a sense of humor.
Let's approach this from another angle.
If something is offensive, is it always morally objectionable? Would a comedic scene that is predicated on eliciting disgust always, by definition, involve moral transgression?
I don't think so, but we often see some overlap between social norms of 'disgusting' and 'immoral'. It is not unusual for a person to express disgust at something that they deem immoral (for example, there are many who find same gender displays of affection both immoral and, to them, disgusting).
Am I required to assent to their attitudes of what is immoral and/or disgusting? Again, I don't think so. And if I'm not required to assent to their attitudes, which framework of morality obtains in our assessment of humor that is both 'immoral' and 'genuinely funny'?
I suggest that any joke that will elicit a consensus, within a given cohort, the verdict 'clearly morally offensive', will NOT also elicit a consensus within the same cohort 'plausible candidate for genuinely funny'.
Oddly, and I think this is worth reflecting upon further, a comedic item may elicit a consensus verdict 'disgusting', also be deemed hilarious, and NOT viewed as 'immoral' at all.
Perhaps a scene in which a person, viewed as unsavory in some way, maybe even reprehensible, is accidentally showered with the contents of a cesspool, after the unsavory individual has proclaimed that another person is 'a piece of shit'. Disgusting to imagine, but nothing immoral. In fact, it might be viewed as a sort of morally redeeming vignette.
Let me cite a specific example of such a comedic item, from Hunter S. Thompson's eulogy of Richard Nixon (fucking hysterical by the way, worth reading in full: 'He Was a Crook' https://www.rogerbaylor.com/2022/01/14/hunter-s-thompson-eulogizes-richard-m-nixon-1994-he-was-a-crook/)
"If the right people had been in charge of Nixon’s funeral, his casket would have been launched into one of those open-sewage canals that empty into the ocean just south of Los Angeles. He was a swine of a man and a jabbering dupe of a president. Nixon was so crooked that he needed servants to help him screw his pants on every morning. Even his funeral was illegal. He was queer in the deepest way. His body should have been burned in a trash bin."
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.
That said, the Camp Auschwitz example above is simply not funny; it’s cruelly belittling, imo.
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.