Framing the Ethical Boundaries of Humor

The Philosophy of Humor Yearbook 3 (1):153-178 (2022)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Humor is unlike other forms of communication because its content is not meant literally. Like acts of play, humor is not intended to be taken at face value. As a consequence, the assumptions and rules that govern normal conversation do not apply. Humor therefore depends upon both the speaker and the audience fully understanding that what was communicated should be treated in this unique way. The play frame refers to this shared understanding about the nature of the communication. Analyzing whether a communication falls within the play frame may help us better understand not only whether the communication can be deemed non-serious or serious, but also whether it can be treated uniquely as merely the speaker’s attempt at play or as a typical instance of literal speech for which the speaker can be deemed ethically responsible.

Similar books and articles

Can We Be Funny? The Social Responsibility of Political Humor.Jason T. Peifer - 2012 - Journal of Mass Media Ethics 27 (4):263-276.
The rejection of humor in western thought.John Morreall - 1989 - Philosophy East and West 39 (3):243-265.
Does God Have a Sense of Humor?Rik Peels - 2015 - Faith and Philosophy 32 (3):271-292.
It’s a Funny Thing, Humor.John Morreall - 2020 - The Philosophy of Humor Yearbook 1 (1):33-48.
Philosophy of humor.Joshua Shaw - 2010 - Philosophy Compass 5 (2):112-126.
Humour and irony in Kierkegaard's thought.John Lippitt - 2000 - New York: St. Martin's Press.

Analytics

Added to PP
2022-10-05

Downloads
685 (#24,066)

6 months
510 (#3,067)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

David Poplar
University of Arizona

Citations of this work

A Kernel of Truth: Outlining an Epistemology of Jokes.Thomas Wilk - 2023 - The Philosophy of Humor Yearbook 4 (1):227-246.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references