The Ethics of Comedy

Real Talk Philosophy Artwork

In 2015, Louis CK received international condemnation for his Saturday Night Live opening monologue wherein he made jokes around mild racism and child molestation (this was two years before receiving international condemnation for a series of sexual assault allegations he later admitted to). Of course, Louis CK is not the only offensive comedian who’s committed sexual offenses. Is there a link between people who make/listen to sexually offensive jokes and people who commit sexual offenses?

According to a 2013 study, after hearing sexist jokes, men report higher rape proclivity. “Rape proclivity” is a self-reported measurement reflecting a man’s willingness to rape a woman assuming he would not be caught. Interestingly, if hearing the same joke by a woman, men report even higher rape proclivity.

Before assessing the rightness or wrongness of a joke, it is pivotal that we first understand what jokes are, what comedy is. What is laughter? What is a joke? Should we be able to laugh at the holocaust, rape, and 9/11? Why are villains depicted as laughing, while heroes are portrayed as serious? Why are eastern Gods shown laughing while western Gods shown to be serious, and what does this imply about the cultures? Why does it feel bad when people laugh at us? Why do we laugh when we’re tickled? Why is it disrespectful to laugh in a holy temple? Why is comedy a male-dominated profession? Are men more likely to make a joke of a serious situation? Should the government regulate the speech of comedians?

Introductory Discussion Questions

• What is a joke? 

• Why do humans laugh? 

• Are there some things we shouldn’t make jokes about? Why or why not? 

• Is there a correlation between telling sexist jokes and committing sexual offenses?

• Think of your favorite joke. Why is it funny? 

What is Laughter?

Laughing is weird. If an alien race which had never experienced laughter, traveled 3 billion miles to planet Earth, only to find humans laughing… they’d think it was the strangest thing they’d ever seen. 

How did Laughter Evolve? 

Though the evolutionary origins of fun and laughter have been heavily debated by academics throughout history, the best theory on the topic may come from neuroscientist and philosopher V. S. Ramachandran told in both The Tell-Tale Brain and Phantoms in the Brain. Ramachandran recognizes that "any stereotyped vocalization almost always implies that the organism is trying to communicate something to others in the social group”. Screams, cries, coos, grunts, sighs, yawps, moans - these all have clear, embedded, universal, a priori meaning. These messages are so pivotal to our survival, so fundamental, it’s no mystery why they’d been embedded into our psyches long before the advent of complex language. But, as Ramachandran asks, “what might this be in the case of laughter?” What message is being communicated that is of such significance that it is among the handful of preverbal vocalizations evolved into us long, long ago? 

Laughter is Hardwired, Not Learned

Humans laugh before they learn to speak. Those born blind and deaf can still laugh, and the laughter produced by deaf people is very similar to laughter produced by hearing people, an indication that laughter is self-generated and not merely mimicry. Laughter appears to be hardwired into human biology.

The Incongruity Theory of Laughter

There are several theories attempting to break down why laughter exists. The most prevalent of these is referred to as the Incongruity Theory of Laughter.  Some researchers pose that laughter is simply the result of broken expectations. They say it is the element of surprise that triggers laughter. We laugh at things that are sudden, unexpected, and incongruous. This style of humor is particularly effective on children, who will laugh at the sudden disappearance and reappearance of a face (Peek-a-boo), or at using a shoe as a phone.

Ramachandran Quotation 

Some theorists, though, suggest that this is not enough. As Ramachandran points out:

Any joke or humorous incident has the following form. You narrate a story step-by-step, leading your listener along a garden path of expectation, and then you introduce an unexpected twist, a punchline, the comprehension of which requires a complete reinterpretation of the preceding events. But that‘s not enough... Deflation of expectation is necessary but not sufficient. The extra key ingredient is that the new interpretation must be inconsequential. 

Imagine for a moment an ancient, prelinguistic tribe. In the middle of the night, the tribe is soundly asleep. They've chosen a watchman to stand guard and protect them from any outside intruders. Off in the distance, the watchman sees an enemy progressing towards him. 

The watchman has no formal language to alert his tribe of the intruder, so he resorts to grunts, yelps, beating on his chest. This awakens and alerts his tribe. They ready themselves for battle. The contagious grunts and yawps rip through the tribe, creating a sonic storm loud enough to scare away the intruder. 

But the intruder is not scared away. He continues forward. 

As he approaches, though, the watchman realizes that this is not an enemy. This… this is Steve. He’d been sent out to search for water 3 days ago and must finally be returning. 

Now, there must be a way for the watchman to communicate to his tribe that this was only a false alarm, otherwise, they may tear him to pieces. So what does he do? 

He begins to laugh. And this laugh rips contagiously through the tribe. And Steve survives.

Now, this is only a theory. Ramachandran himself recognizes that there’s no evidence supporting this exact scenario. Regardless of whether or not it’s true, though, perhaps the False Alarm Theory of Laughter provides insight into a fundamental piece of the puzzle. Or perhaps you disagree. Perhaps you believe that simply incongruity solves the mystery of laughter. Or perhaps you believe that there’s still a missing element. This is for you to decide. 

Implications of the False Alarm Theory of Laughter

Ramachandran’s False Alarm Theory of Laughter can explain the comedy behind most jokes ever told. 

Comedy is fundamentally different from drama. In a conventional drama, there is a problem (e.g. a dragon), and as the drama advances the problem is solved (e.g. the hero slays the dragon). In a joke, however, a problem is presented, but the problem is not solved. Instead of being solved, there is a paradigm shift, and it is revealed that the apparent danger, the apparent threat, the apparent problem never actually existed (e.g. the dragon was really just a play of light in the sky).

Immanuel Kant Quotation

As Immanuel Kant theorized in his Critique of Pure Judgment, two centuries before Ramachandran, “laughter is an affect resulting from the sudden transformation of a heightened expectation into nothing.” Kant continues:

Suppose that the heir of a rich relative wants to arrange for him a very solemn funeral service, but complains that things are not quite working out: For (he says), the more money I give my mourners to look grieved, the more cheerful they look.- This evokes ringing laughter in us, and the reason is that we have an expectation that is suddenly transformed into nothing.

Kant continues:

Suppose that the heir of a rich relative wants to arrange for him a very solemn funeral service, but complains that things are not quite working out: For (he says), the more money I give my mourners to look grieved, the more cheerful they look.- This evokes ringing laughter in us, and the reason is that we have an expectation that is suddenly transformed into nothing.

Gallows Humor - Hitchhiker’s Guide

Gallows Humor refers to the kind of joke one might have just before the time of death. Douglas Adams gives us an excellent example in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy: 

“So this is it," said Arthur, "We are going to die."

"Yes," said Ford, "except... no! Wait a minute!" He suddenly lunged across the chamber at something behind Arthur's line of vision. "What's this switch?" he cried.

"What? Where?" cried Arthur, twisting round.

"No, I was only fooling," said Ford, "we are going to die after all.”

In real life, many convicts on death row have confronted their imminent death with humor. For example, the murderer James French, before his death by electric chair, is attributed with these famous last words: "How's this for a headline? 'French Fries'." Another example can be found at the public execution of the murderer William Palmer who is said to have looked at the trapdoor on the gallows and asked the hangman, "Are you sure it's safe?". Doctors also reportedly lighten the load of difficult news with Gallows Humor:

“How long does he have to live?” 

“Let me put it this way… The next time he needs to buy toothpaste, tell him the travel size will do just fine.”

Ramachandran writes, “This also explains why laughter is so notoriously contagious, for the value of any such signal would be amplified as it spreads through the social group.”

Tickling

Can Ramachandran’s False Alarm Theory of Laughter tell us anything about tickling? 

Studies looking into why we laugh when tickled have been inconclusive. One study recently scanned subjects’ brains with an MRI while tickling them. The study found that tickling activated the hypothalamus, igniting the subjects’ primitive desire to flee from danger, setting off an “alarm." Once the ticklee recognized that this is no enemy, but a friend, the alarm was revealed to be false, resulting in a laugh. 

When being tickled, we are suspended in two distinct worlds, receiving two signals simultaneously: one that we are under attack, and another that this initial signal was a false-alarm. This explains why we are unable to tickle ourselves, as no real threat is ever detected, and why we do not laugh when being tickled by someone who actually presents a threat, for there is no false-alarm, but a very genuine alarm. 

Jokes are Difficult to Remember

This might help explain why jokes are so difficult to remember. Our brains may save storage space by offloading all inconsequential information. And jokes, according to Ramachandran’s theory, are definitively inconsequential.

Slapstick

Ramachandran suggests that the False Alarm Theory of Laughter may also explain slapstick. 

You watch a man—preferably one who is portly and self−important—walk down the street when suddenly he slips on a banana peel and falls down. If his head hit the pavement and his skull split open, you would not laugh as you saw blood spill out; you would rush to his aid or to the nearest telephone to call an ambulance. But if he got up casually, wiped the remains of the fruit from his face, and continued walking, you would probably burst out laughing, thereby letting others standing nearby know that they need not rush to his aid. Of course, when watching Laurel and Hardy or Mr. Bean, we are more willing to tolerate "real" harm or injury to the hapless victim because we are fully aware that it's only a movie.

This perhaps is why Charlie Chaplin’s Tramp sports such a ridiculous waistcoat, mustache, and tophat. Or why Larry, Moe, and Curly style their hair so ridiculously. These alienation tools keep the audience reminded that they are merely watching an imitation of life, but not real life. Thus they are simultaneously suspended in two distinct realities: one in which the action in the scene is a terrible tragedy, signalling an alarm; and another in which the action in the scene is merely fictitious and poses no genuine threat, signalling a false-alarm indication. 

In addition, Ramachandran argues that this False Alarm may be the evolutionary origin of nervous-laughter and speculates that this could even be the evolutionary origin of the smile. This may shed light on why cannabis makes so many of us burst into laughter. Scientists currently don’t know why cannabis makes us laugh. But following Ramachandran’s theory, perhaps cannabis affects brain chemistry in such a way that the things we believed to be very serious become unserious, inconsequential, and this, in turn, creates laughter.  

As one Leafly user put it, “I laughed so hard that I threw up. And that made me laugh more. It was terrible.”

The False Alarm Theory of Fun in Games 

We laugh when playing games like Truth or Dare, Strip Poker, or Spin the Bottle because the actions that result from play break social conventions, and for this reason are believed to be sacrosanct. Once a rule is broken with no consequence, players realize that this alarm was false, resulting in laughter. Breaking rules that result in serious negative consequences, (e.g. drinking enough alcohol to incite poisoning) is not fun. If players are not customarily adherent to these social conventions (e.g. friends who often kiss or see each other naked), they will likely not find these games fun, as no alarm is ever signaled. 

Quote by Dalai Lama

The value of laughter has not been overlooked by health researchers or spiritual teachers. “I have been confronted with many difficulties throughout the course of my life,” the Dali Lama once said. “And my country is going through a critical period. But I laugh often, and my laughter is contagious. When people ask me how I find the strength to laugh now, I reply that I am a professional laugher.”

We sometimes say that life is a comedy. That life is a game or a joke. What does this mean? 

Well, according to the False Alarm Theory of Laughter, this would imply that life is full of experiences that on the surface appear to be consequential, dangerous. But, beyond the surface interpretation, it’s recognized that these things are, in fact, inconsequential. A fun life does not result from disregarding objectives, disobeying rules, disengaging in competition, avoiding danger, shirking off responsibility, undervaluing points systems, or rejecting our roles. But to look at life as a comedy, as a joke, as a game, to attain the psychological state of “fun,” we must be simultaneously suspended in two worlds, one that considers the rules, competition, rewards, etc. of this game-world seriously, and another that recognizes them to be ultimately inconsequential.

Discussion Questions

• Why does it feel bad when people laugh at us?

• Why is it funny to see someone fall and hurt themselves in slapstick? Is it funny in real life?

• Are men more likely than women to make jokes of serious situations?

• Is life a joke? What does this imply? 

• Why would the Dalai Lama consider himself a professional laugher? 

Laughing Villains VS. Serious Heroes

History of Villains with Evil Laughter

The trope of the villainous laugh used often in movies today is actually not new. The earliest evidence of the phrase “Evil laugh” dates back to the 1860s. Though the phrase “wicked laugh” can be seen as early as 1784 and the term “sardonic laugh” appears in 1714 and may have been used earlier. 

So humans have for quite a while viewed laughter as somewhat evil. But why? 

When a child’s laugh or Santa’s Ho Ho Ho brings us such joy? 

Keeping in line with Ramachandran’s theory, laughter’s role is to communicate that those things which had been considered consequential are in fact inconsequential. 

Cruella de Vil, for instance, does not laugh maniacally simply because she finds joy in the prospect of skinning her assistant’s pups; humans find intense joy in many things that do not trigger laughter. More than simply enjoying, Cruela finds the exchange humorous exactly because she’s aware that her assistant finds this to be extremely unpleasant. But in Cruella’s demonic, psychopathic mind, there is nothing wrong with killing pups. And in an attempt to communicate her believed inconsequentiality of the dog’s death, she laughs. 

Heroes, on the other hand, recognize the consequences of their actions. In fact, one key to the hero’s journey, it could be argued, is taking responsibility for your actions so you can overcome your limitations. 

Famous evil Laughter

Of course, Cruella de Vil is not the only villain depicted as laughing. 

Here are some Villains with Maniacal Laughter:

• The end of Thriller music video

• Mr. Burns 

• The Wicked Witch

• Al Pacino in The Devil’s Advocate 

• The Witch in Snow White

• Biff in Back to the Future

• Jabba the Hutt

• Voldemort in Harry Potter

• Nicholas Cage in Face/Off

• Chucky 

• Jack in The Shining

• The Joker

• Predator

• A Clockwork Orange

• Sid in Toy Story

• Nightmare on Elm Street

• David Bowie in Labyrinth 

• The Hyenas in The Lion King

• Pennywise in It 

• Hans Landa

• Evil Dead

• Milhouse 

It’s interesting to note that In comic books, villains’ laughter is often rendered as mwahahaha, muwhahaha, muahahaha, bwahahaha, etc., but never the cheerful ho ho ho ho of Santa Claus.

East/West Divide 

But there actually appears to be an east/west divide on this issue. Western gods and heroes are often seen as quite serious. But deities in the east, The Buddha, for instance, are often depicted as laughing. Perhaps this is an indication of a difference between eastern and western mentalities - the west valuing seriousness and the east valuing acceptance and play, recognizing that everything is, in the end, inconsequential. 

Just a Joke

Charlie Hebdo is a French satirical weekly newspaper. It mocks everything, including religions - Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism. On the 3rd November 2011, the cover of Charlie Hebdo read "100 lashes if you don't die of laughter!" with a cartoon featuring Muhammad. Years later, on 7 January 2015, two French Muslim brothers forced their way into the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris. They killed 12 people and injured 11 others.

On 9 November 2016, many supporters of Donald Trump began sharing this and similar tweets. There were many different versions, but most went along the lines of “Donald Trump grabbed that election by the pussy.” This, of course, is satirizing the extremely vulgar comments Trump made while talking to television personality Billy Bush of “Access Hollywood” on the set of “Days of Our Lives,” where Trump was making a cameo appearance. 

Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

Bush: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.

A friend of the Forum told us that her father shared this tweet. And of course, she was shocked. “You know I’ve been the victim of sexual assault,” she texted him. “How could you tweet something like that?”. To which her father replied, as you might expect, “Calm down, honey…… It’s just a joke.” 

It’s just a joke

Many argue that rape jokes are fine. They’re only jokes. They’re not hurting anyone. The comedians who make rape jokes clearly do not condone or perpetuate rape. Those who are offended obviously don’t have a sense of humor. They’re opinionated, sensitive, and dramatic. 

But researchers have found that there is a correlation between rape proclivity and sexist jokes. “Rape proclivity” is a self-reported measurement reflecting a man’s willingness to rape a woman assuming he would not be caught. In a 2013 study conducted by Manuela Thomae and Viki Tendayi, they argue: 

If a person holds hostile sexist attitudes, then exposure to sexist jokes may create a situation which not only enhances tolerance of discrimination against women, but also appears to elevate the propensity to commit rape. 

Thomae and Tendayi discourage jokes that discriminate against women, saying that they “can create a circle of hostility and discrimination that culminates in physical violence against out-group members.” In this study, Thomae and Tendayi used the following jokes: 

• Why are women like carpets?
  If you lay them properly the first time, you can walk all over them for years.

• Why do women have small feet?
  So they can get closer to the sink!

• How many women does it take to change a light bulb?
  None, let her do the dishes in the dark.

• What is the best thing about a blowjob?
  Ten minutes’ silence.

If we turn to college campuses, we can see real-life examples of the correlation between inappropriate rape humor and the heightened occurrence of sexual assault. In 2012, CNN presented a video of Yale fraternity pledges chanting, “No means yes, yes means anal,” on campus outside female freshman dorm rooms. This was likely a joke. But statistics show that fraternity members are more likely than other college men to commit rape. At St. Mary’s University, fraternity brothers gleefully decreed, “SMU boys we like them young. Y is for your sister, O is for oh so tight, U is for underage, N is for no consent, G is for grab that ass.” These chants do not only exemplify the apathetic attitude these young men have towards non-consensual sex, but the communal chants also spread apathy amongst group members. It’s likely that many of these men would not have chanted such words on their own. But they were persuaded by their fellow pledges. The power of peer pressure is real. Even some female students participated in these chants. 

Sensitive Jokes

Jokes have real power. They’re used in therapeutic settings to de-escalate the intensity of an experience or a memory. But aren’t there some experiences, some memories that should stay escalated? 

Another example of such a topic is The Holocaust. Is this not something we should consider too serious to deflate with humor? Why didn’t the Jews in Germany fight against the Nazis? There was too little interest.

If the role of humor is to deflate the severity of an experience, then making jokes about the Holocaust expresses that the teller of the joke considers the Holocaust to have been an ultimately inconsequential experience. As laughter is contagious, by telling rape jokes or Holocaust jokes, we may be spreading a mindset that these things shouldn’t be taken seriously. 

Israeli friends of the Forum agree; holocaust jokes are dangerous. But, many maintain that there is one group of people who are allowed to tell holocaust jokes - Jews. Just as victims of sexual assault can find it extremely therapeutic to tell jokes about their experience, many Israelis find it therapeutic to tell jokes about the Holocaust, to lighten the burden, to overcome the PTSD, to deflate the severity of the memory of the experience that defines their culture and the Israeli nationality. 

So, the belief then is that Jewish people need holocaust jokes to deflate the seriousness of the holocaust in order to survive, but non-Jewish people need to remember the severity of the holocaust, and therefore can not deflate it with a joke (just as survivors of sexual assault can use jokes to deflate the severity of their experience, while everyone else should avoid them). 
So perhaps it’s too simple to simply say that these sorts of jokes are dangerous or unethical. Perhaps the morality of a joke is dependent on context. Perhaps, like many tools, jokes can be used for good or for evil. Or maybe you disagree. Maybe you believe that all sexist and otherwise politically incorrect jokes are unethical regardless of who’s telling them. Or perhaps you believe that there’s nothing too serious to not be made fun of. That’s for you to decide.

Discussion Questions

• Why are demons/villains shown laughing (e.g. the Joker, satan), while gods/heroes are shown serious (e.g. Thor, Batman, etc.)? Is there an east/west divide? 

• Are fraternity brothers more likely than other college students to commit rape?

• Should we be able to make jokes about taboo subjects like the holocaust, rape, and 9/11? 

• Should the government regulate the speech of comedians? 

• Can laughter be therapeutic? 

Haiku and Drawing Submissions