Ethics, Comedy, and Free Speech

Abstract I introduce some philosophical considerations concerned with free speech, drawing on the work of J. S. Mill and rejecting some commonly heard arguments for thinking that threats to free speech, whether in general or in comedy, have been exaggerated. I then move to moral objections to certain sorts of comedy, noting the distinction between objecting to the intrinsic badness of jokes and objecting to offending people's sensibilities. I argue that it is hard to resolve arguments about the supposed intrinsic badness of comic material, since the parties to these disputes often have profoundly different worldviews. I then turn to reasons given for thinking comedy can be morally bad, for example that it is racist. I argue that while there are certainly some things comedians should not say, there are contextual factors that can confer ‘comic licence’ in certain cases. I also suggest that morally bad features of comedy can be offset by compensating comedic features. Moreover, there is an important distinction between genuinely punching down at vulnerable groups, and punching up at ideological frameworks that seem to support these groups, but do not. I consider this last point with reference to some work of the satirist Andrew Doyle.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement
Published
2024-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/s1358246124000201
Primary Topic
Law in Society and Culture
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Ethics, Comedy, and Free Speech

Piers Benn
Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement
Law in Society and Culture
article

Ethics, Comedy, and Free Speech

Piers Benn
article en

Abstract

Abstract I introduce some philosophical considerations concerned with free speech, drawing on the work of J. S. Mill and rejecting some commonly heard arguments for thinking that threats to free speech, whether in general or in comedy, have been exaggerated. I then move to moral objections to certain sorts of comedy, noting the distinction between objecting to the intrinsic badness of jokes and objecting to offending people's sensibilities. I argue that it is hard to resolve arguments about the supposed intrinsic badness of comic material, since the parties to these disputes often have profoundly different worldviews. I then turn to reasons given for thinking comedy can be morally bad, for example that it is racist. I argue that while there are certainly some things comedians should not say, there are contextual factors that can confer ‘comic licence’ in certain cases. I also suggest that morally bad features of comedy can be offset by compensating comedic features. Moreover, there is an important distinction between genuinely punching down at vulnerable groups, and punching up at ideological frameworks that seem to support these groups, but do not. I consider this last point with reference to some work of the satirist Andrew Doyle.

Royal Institute of Philosophy SupplementVol. 96
Openalex Percentile: Top 45%
Law in Society and Culture
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Ethics, Comedy, and Free Speech — Piers Benn · Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS