Making Fun of Funny Beliefs: A Slippery Slope Problem (?)
O.k., so I've thought a (very) little bit about this question because I teach philosophy, right? But the same question pops up in other contexts as well. To wit: how crazy/uncommon does a theory have to be before it's o.k. to blatantly make fun of it?
So, example: I think it's probably o.k. to make fun of the cult of Scientology. It's complete and unadulterated horse shit, and in case you've never really looked into it, you must! I mean, it's a hoot and a half. Evil space emperors committing galaxy-cide, possession by demons, past life memories from a "trillion trillion trillion trillion" years ago...I mean, seriously, only a (really, really bad) sci-fi writer could have come up with this crapola.
Now, I don't make fun of Scientology in class, but I think it would probably be morally permissible to do so.
But then what about Mormonism? With the whole story about gold tablets appearning and disappearing, Jesus visiting America, flaming salamanders, huge, thriving pre-Columbian cultures that left no archaeological evidence behind (including a gi-normous battle in 421 A.D. that left hundreds of thousands of people dead and nobody to bury the bodies). I mean, fer chrissake.
But Mormonism lies on a continuum with the rest of Christianity. If you buy the Jesus story, then you shouldn't have any trouble with him visiting North America. And it's more likely that a huge civilization could disappear without a trace than that the son of God came to earth and performed miracles. Not to mention somehow taking people's sins away.
So then we get:
(1) It's permissible to make fun of Scientology
(2) If it's permissible to make fun of Scientology, then it's permissible to make fun of Mormonism
(3) If it's permissible to make fun of Mormonism, then it's permissible to make fun of Christianity in general
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) It's permissible to make fun of Christianity in general
Maybe (4) is true if you don't have a captive audience, but it isn't true when we're talking about a class. Or is it? Hmm... Perhaps degrees matter here. The occasional joke, but not a concerted campaign of derision?
But anyway: If (4) is false in some context, then by the above argument (1) is false in that context as well. But in what context could it be unreasonable to make fun of a dangerous cult with a laughable doctrine?
Which makes one wonder whether what matters is merely how common the belief in question is. Can we make fun of people who worship Asmodeus just because there are so few of them? Similar to: there are jokes about, e.g., people getting eaten by bears, but no jokes about people dying from cancer, even though the former does happen and is probably roughly as mind-bendingly traumatic and awful as the latter. But it can't matter that the one is just more common than the other, can it?
Finally:
Nietzsche: "A joke is the epitaph on the death of a feeling."
Thoughts?
O.k., so I've thought a (very) little bit about this question because I teach philosophy, right? But the same question pops up in other contexts as well. To wit: how crazy/uncommon does a theory have to be before it's o.k. to blatantly make fun of it?
So, example: I think it's probably o.k. to make fun of the cult of Scientology. It's complete and unadulterated horse shit, and in case you've never really looked into it, you must! I mean, it's a hoot and a half. Evil space emperors committing galaxy-cide, possession by demons, past life memories from a "trillion trillion trillion trillion" years ago...I mean, seriously, only a (really, really bad) sci-fi writer could have come up with this crapola.
Now, I don't make fun of Scientology in class, but I think it would probably be morally permissible to do so.
But then what about Mormonism? With the whole story about gold tablets appearning and disappearing, Jesus visiting America, flaming salamanders, huge, thriving pre-Columbian cultures that left no archaeological evidence behind (including a gi-normous battle in 421 A.D. that left hundreds of thousands of people dead and nobody to bury the bodies). I mean, fer chrissake.
But Mormonism lies on a continuum with the rest of Christianity. If you buy the Jesus story, then you shouldn't have any trouble with him visiting North America. And it's more likely that a huge civilization could disappear without a trace than that the son of God came to earth and performed miracles. Not to mention somehow taking people's sins away.
So then we get:
(1) It's permissible to make fun of Scientology
(2) If it's permissible to make fun of Scientology, then it's permissible to make fun of Mormonism
(3) If it's permissible to make fun of Mormonism, then it's permissible to make fun of Christianity in general
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) It's permissible to make fun of Christianity in general
Maybe (4) is true if you don't have a captive audience, but it isn't true when we're talking about a class. Or is it? Hmm... Perhaps degrees matter here. The occasional joke, but not a concerted campaign of derision?
But anyway: If (4) is false in some context, then by the above argument (1) is false in that context as well. But in what context could it be unreasonable to make fun of a dangerous cult with a laughable doctrine?
Which makes one wonder whether what matters is merely how common the belief in question is. Can we make fun of people who worship Asmodeus just because there are so few of them? Similar to: there are jokes about, e.g., people getting eaten by bears, but no jokes about people dying from cancer, even though the former does happen and is probably roughly as mind-bendingly traumatic and awful as the latter. But it can't matter that the one is just more common than the other, can it?
Finally:
Nietzsche: "A joke is the epitaph on the death of a feeling."
Thoughts?
posted by Winston Smith at
7:37 AM
7 Comments:
Whether or not a topic is appropriate for jokes seems to be more a matter of manners and taste than a matter of morals or ethics. The more general question of when does bad behavior cross a line and become morally impermissible, or in practicle society, subject to criminal prohibition, is far more interesting than the paticular question of when a popular theory may be ridiculed. Volume Two of Joel Feinberg's The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law -- Offenses to Others may be a source of a well though out answer.
There is the joke about the Pope receiving a phone call:
Pope's Aide: (very excited): "Your Holiness, Good news and Bad News...
Pope: What's the good news?
Pope's Aide: Your Holiness, Christ has returned and he has just called. He is on the phone as we speak!
Pope: Wonderful! how can there be any bad news?
Pope's Aide: Well, Your Holiness he is calling from Salt Lake City.
(rimshot)
One aspect of humor is the unexpected joining of disparate thoughts. If something is common or present for whatever reason, then it's harder for it to be funny. So, mortal car accidents, say, are less funny than being eaten by bears - unless, perhaps, you're on a year-long cruise on an ocean liner, where the thought of car accidents might be distant - but being eaten by bears is less funny if you've recently watched Grizzly Man.
Contempt is also a form of distance. As is, strangely, fear, although it's a different kind of humor.
There's an interesting point here about the relationship between moral rules and specific contexts. You can't be funny without timing, but you can probably be moral without timing, no?
Mormon church was established in 1830's Scientology in 1952.
You can't make fun of the Mormon church anymore but you can make fun of Scientology until ahhh around 2130, give or take.
Hidden question: If it's permissible to make fun of fundies, why isn't it permissible to make fun of, say, black people? Dunno. And Richard Pryor's no longer around to ask. Try Chris Rock!
Seriously, the fundies have a choice, and most of them believe in free will, so they can't deny it. I'd say have at it!
Of course, practically, if you want continued employment, don't make any of these jokes anywhere near a student.
Doesn't the humor of Mormanism and Scientology depend in part on the fact that they are believed by so many people? Do we find the myths of Ancient Greece laughable? Would we if they were widely held beliefs?
That is, doesn't this sort of humor depend upon our judgement that these are bad, if not absurd theories, coupled with the propensity of people to believe them nonetheless?
And generally, isn't it a good idea to tell a joke only if you think the audience will laugh, i.e. agree that these are absurd yet (relatively) popular beliefs?
Does this answer your question?
Wow, very interesting observations. My first read on your blog, actually. I guess I stumbled in at a good time.
It makes you think about what is and isn't "permissible" to openly criticize or laugh at. It also makes you think about who deems what "permissible" means.
Great post.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home