-Soren Kierkegaard
Did you know 'Funny' is an ethical category? Good humor is the evidence of an ethical character. Funny is moral. Aristotle recognized wit [eutrapelia] as a moral virtue. Baylor Moral Philosopher Robert C. Roberts clams that a sense of humor is a Christian virtue.(1) As most think of virtue this is not a stretch. A sense of humor is a trait people naturally value in friends, and colleagues, and never wish that they be thought of as deficient in. Roberts, relates it to key figures, such as Socrates and Tolstoy, clamming that there "wisdom was partially constituted by a sense of humor." Tolstoy, in his staunch and subtle Russian way, used a satire as a way of uncovering the gummy yet ironic truth of the human situation. Given the media coverage over Saturday Night Lives’ resent satirical skit about our President(see note 2). I thought, a little look at the ethical nature of comedy would be interesting.
Saturday Night Live’s resent satirical skit begged the question of Obama’s effectiveness. It framed the President as ineffective and a double-talker, traits CNN thought where unjustifiable.(3) The type of comedic form used in the skit was satire. So what is satire? Satire refers to the literary or rhetorical forms in which vices or follies are ridiculed. It has been called a funny appeal to an obvious truth. It is a powerful rhetorical device because of its ability to make its point. Satire often emphasizes a weakness more than the weak person, and usually implies a moral judgment and corrective purpose.(4) This is why the Hebrew prophets often used it in giving their oracles. Satire uses the weapon of wit to make a serious but funny point! A very common, almost defining feature of satire is its strong vein of irony. Sarcasm, parody, exaggeration, juxtaposition, comparison, analogy, and double entendre are all commonly used in satirical comedy. John Stewart is a good example this type of comedy(see clip below).
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| ||||
Generally speaking, in the southern culture love and respect can have a satirical expression. Honor and affection are conveyed through a little friendly ribbing. In my family, it an't love if you don't pick at them a little. The more universal example of this is in giving someone a roast. A dinner given in honor of a notable person where the guests tell humors stories and make satirical remarks at the expense of the person. Anyone asked to speak at such an event knows the moral weight of word choice and the tension between honoring a friend and dishonoring the person.
From Satire to Lampoon
The sensitive roast speaker understands that there is a continuum between good satire and satire that is morally wrong. If good satire is on one end then Lampoon is on the other. Lampoon refers to a form of satire, often political or personal, characterized by the malice or virulence of its attack. In a lampoon, the purpose is to attack or discredit a person, or a way of seeing the world (worldview), of which the author strongly disapproves. Lampoon does not appear bitter but is rooted in a personal contempt of some view that comes out in the nature of the joke. Good satire even when the truth hurts has an underlying lack of contempt, where as lampoon seeks to dishonor, damage the reputation, shame, or disrespect the person or idea of which the author strongly disapproves
Is Obama the New bush?
What do I mean by this question? All political pitchforks aside,how are we to use satire when it comes to political figures? Is President Obama as easy to satirize as George W Bush? On Current TV there is a show devoted to satire, mostly political. It is called 'SuperNews!' SuperNews creator and satirist Josh Faure-Brac gave some answers to our questions.
So is Obama easier to satirize? Faure-Brac says "definitely yes", "some times no" and "it depends". While I think, Faure-Brac is good at what he does. So is Obama easier to satirize? "definitely yes", "some times no" and "it depends". While I think, Faure-Brac is good at what he does yet he needs to work on his clarity of thought.
Personally, it seems clear to me that all satire directed at Bush in his last two years was mostly lampoons. It’s without a doubt what Sara Palin endured. Now in a new political era, Obama is now experiencing some satire as all political fingers should (it reminds the rest of us that they have flaws and are human). While bush is lampooned Obama is satirized. I think I know what your thinking. Yes this shows liberal bias, yes this is unbalanced, but I applaud them for being moral as to how they poke fun at the OUR Head of State. The contrast reveals the moral principle that should govern satire: All satire must retain a measure of graciousness and a lack of contempt.
Categories of Evaluation
We live in a time in which cynicism disenchantment and overall fussiness is the cultural mood. In our cynical culture, we praise people by making fun at them. Some say satire is the new fame and parody the highest honor. Kurt Cobain considered Weird Al's parody of 'Smells like Teen Spirit' to be a great honor and a sign Nirvana was truly famous.
Yet have we lost a sense of proportion and discretion? One needs only look at comedy central’s celebrity roast. Most of the jokes are lampoons. In our lack of discretion we no longer have the tools needed for making a judgment of our own satire. We no longer have the discernment needed to know good satire from lampooning someone. Civility has given in to cheep laughs. we no longer have the old boundaries of civility, public decency and a 'do unto other' respect, so our satire is running wild.
So how do we track it down? Here are two categories of evaluation that can frame your own moral deliberation. Who knows this may save your marriage? Further, it may help in your friendship with a democratic best friend or republican boss? It may even give you the tools to joke with the hippy just down the street?
1. What is the Object of the joke?- what is the object of the joke? Is it a person or position? What am I calling into question? Is the funny in the irony of the obvious truth?
2. What is the true purpose of the joke? - what do you seek in the joke to destroy or honor the person to pick at someone’s weakness showing them to be human as we all are or make them out to be a weak person thus describing them as a little less than human. Do I personally dislike the object of the joke? If so, I would I like to harm or damage the reputation of the person? Seek to find the funny in the obvious truth and not in shaming dishonoring and bring into ill repute the character of another.
3. What moral judgment is behind the joke? Is it appropriate to the context in which i tell the joke, that is to say is the obvious truth I am exposing obvious to everyone or just those that think like me?
Putting a stop to the lampoon laugh track
Here is where you come in - Can I challenge you to cultivate your comedic palate? Can I enjoin you to bind your jokes to in civility and compassion? First, Seek to stop the use of lampoons and the making of straw men. Become a person of civility and proper proportion. A person that resists evil from within and without. From within, never allowing words to stray beyond there borders so as to have a joke become a weapon. From without, naturally responding to a lampoon as if it where nails on a dusty chalk board. A person that cringes no matter who the joke is about. If it be Henry Madoff, or Jeb Bush, Obama or Rush Limbaugh, too far is too far, and no enjoyment is found in a lampoon. Two, Train your mouth to do stand up like Socrates did. Becoming a person that honors the gift of laughter and abides in love; A cheerful person: reflecting a willingness and good humor even in the mundane muck of the common life.
Funny is funny and wrong is wrong but never the twain shall meet. May it be true in all our lives.
The world may be cynical but the church need not be! we can put a stop to the lampoon laugh track, by becoming people a sweet satire. In a culture so ripe with sin such a posture is required. And if you journey on into God’s gospel you will not be let down. You will find, one day in the distant 'not yet', on a morning when slow reflection has you chasing your thoughts. You will look upon who you have been, are and want to be and only see the evidence of grace. Grace that changed you abides with you and leads you on into a truer expression of Christ's new humanity.
Grace is a joke, an obvious truth, ironic and complex, a scandal to the Greek and good news to all. Grace is funny like that
EndNotes
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Roberts logical argument is as follows, Amusement perceives incongruities. Virtues are formally congruities between one's character and one's nature. An ethical sense of humor is a sense for incongruities between people's behavior and character, and their telos. To appreciate any humor one must adopt a perspective, and in the case of ethical amusement this is the standpoint of one who possesses the virtues. In being amused at the incongruity of some human foible, one is dissociated from it, and adopts a 'higher' perspective. Thus a sense of humor about one's own foibles is a capacity of character-transcendence; but character-transcendence is basic to the very concept of a moral virtue. The prima facie moral dubiousness of enjoying failures of human fulfilment leads to placing certain restrictions on such enjoyment: a sense of humor cannot be a virtue unless allied with compassion and hope. Finally, amusement implies a certain vivacity of perception of the incongruity in question. It is thus a way, not merely of knowing or judging that certain things are fitting and others not, but of 'seeing' that.
(2)SNL Obama Video
(3) CNN fact checked the SNL skit but not Joe Biden’s intentional inaccuracies in the Vice Presidential debate.
(4) Interestingly, a presupposition necessary for satire to be effective is the concept of the morally ordered universes. Given the popularity of this type of comedy the relativism so commonly espouses is nothing more than an illusionary and contrived argument and not expressive of what most believe at heart. As always the question is not, does morality exist but whose morality is right and true? What justice is truly just?
