What Could It Mean to Say That Today's Stand‐Up Audiences Are Too Sensitive?

Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 78 (4):501-512 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Contemporary comedy audiences are accused by some comedians of being too morally sensitive to appreciate humor. To get closer to an idea of what this means, I will first briefly present the argument over audience sensitivity as found in the non-philosophical literature. Second, I then turn to the philosophical literature and begin from the idea that “funny” is a response-dependent property. I present a criticism of this response-dependence account of “funny” based in the claim that funniness is not de- termined by what normal audiences actually laugh at, but by what merits laughter. Third, I argue that excessive or deficient moral sensitivity distorts audience receptivity to humor. Fourth, I turn to candidates for ideally sensitive audiences. I conclude by returning to the particular cases of supposed oversensitivity or undersensitivity to jokes to see how we might judge them.

Other Versions

No versions found

Similar books and articles

Self- Deprecation and the Habit of Laughter.Camille Atkinson - 2015 - Florida Philosophical Review 15 (1):19-36.
Is Stand‐Up Comedy Art?Ian Brodie - 2020 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 78 (4):401-418.
Just Kidding Folks! An Expressivist Analysis of Humor.Thomas Brommage - 2015 - Florida Philosophical Review 15 (1):66-77.
Winning Over the Audience: Trust and Humor in Stand‐Up Comedy.Daniel Abrahams - 2020 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 78 (4):491-500.
Why 30 Rock Is Not Funny.Josh Gillon - 2011 - Philosophy and Literature 35 (2):320-337.
Humor and Harm.Laurence Goldstein - 1995 - Sorites 3:27-42.
The Ethics of Humor: Can Your Sense of Humor be Wrong?Aaron Smuts - 2010 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 13 (3):333-347.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-11-10

Downloads
851 (#27,327)

6 months
152 (#28,566)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Phillip Deen
University of New Hampshire, Manchester

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Freedom and Resentment.Peter Strawson - 1962 - Proceedings of the British Academy 48:187-211.
Freedom and Resentment.Peter Strawson - 1982 - In Gary Watson (ed.), Free will. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dispositional Theories of Value.Michael Smith, David Lewis & Mark Johnston - 1989 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 63 (1):89-174.
The Moralistic Fallacy.Daniel Jacobson - 2000 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61 (1):65-90.
The Moralistic Fallacy: On the 'Appropriateness' of Emotions.Justin D'Arms & Daniel Jacobson - 2000 - Philosophical and Phenomenological Research 61 (1):65-90.

View all 21 references / Add more references