Was Dave Chappelle Morally Obliged to Leave Comedy? On the Limits of Consequentialism

The Philosophy of Humor Yearbook 1 (1):135-152 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Dave Chappelle took an extended leave from comedy for moral reasons. I argue that, while he had every right to leave comedy because of his moral concerns, he was not obliged to do so. To make this case, I present Chappelle’s argument that the potential negative consequences of his racial humor obliged him to leave. Next, I argue against Chappelle’s argument about avoidable harms as the harms are not his responsibility, he was not being negligent, and the benefits of his humor outweigh the harms. I also argue in support of the intuition that another’s failure of comprehension or moral character, even if that failure will predictably result in harms to others, should not convert moral acts into immoral ones.

Similar books and articles

The rights and wrongs of consequentialism.Brian McElwee - 2010 - Philosophical Studies 151 (3):393 - 412.
The Efficacy of Comedy.Mark Anthony Castricone - 2019 - Dissertation, University of South Florida
On Being Obliged to Act.Alan R. White - 1968 - Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 1:64-82.
On Being Obliged to Act.Alan R. White - 1968 - Royal Institute of Philosophy Lectures 1:64-82.
Ein Plädoyer für den Rechtsnormen-Konsequentialismus.Vuko Andrić & Martin Kerz - 2014 - Archiv Für Rechts- Und Sozialphilosophie. Beihef 140:87-98.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-09-27

Downloads
629 (#26,255)

6 months
296 (#6,924)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Phillip Deen
University of New Hampshire, Manchester

References found in this work

Strict moral liability.Justin A. Capes - 2019 - Social Philosophy and Policy 36 (1):52-71.
Gay Rights.Richard D. Mohr - 1982 - Social Theory and Practice 8 (1):31-41.

Add more references