Film and Philosophy 11:49-66 (2007)

Authors
Aaron Smuts
Rhode Island College
Abstract
Any analysis of "In the Company of Men" is forced to answer three questions of central importance to the ethics of humor: What does it mean to find sexist humor funny? What are the various sources of humor? And, can moral flaws with attempts at humor increase their humorousness? I argued that although merely finding a joke funny in a neutral context cannot tell you anything reliable about a person's beliefs, in context, a joke may reveal a great deal about one’s social attitudes, or feelings of insecurity. Especially in its portrayal of Howard, the film exposes the role of insecurity as a source of humor. Not only can insecurity make one more prone to laugh, but it can also make someone seem funnier in some contexts. I contended that this shows that a strong version of the superiority theory of humor is clearly wrong. Furthermore, the disparate audience reactions to Chad's jokes showed that the morally sensitive who were aware of the purpose of his jokes would see them as ethically flawed. Rather than making the jokes more amusing, the fact that the jokes were considered to be ethically flawed made them less funny. Hence, immoralism is most likely false
Keywords humor  immoralism  moralism  superiority  In the Company of Men  philosophy of film
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.5840/filmphil2007115
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,265
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The Ethics of Humor: Can Your Sense of Humor Be Wrong?Aaron Smuts - 2010 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 13 (3):333-347.
Art and Negative Affect.Aaron Smuts - 2009 - Philosophy Compass 4 (1):39-55.
Winning Over the Audience: Trust and Humor in Stand‐Up Comedy.Daniel Abrahams - 2020 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 78 (4):491-500.
Meriting a Response: The Paradox of Seductive Artworks.Nils-Hennes Stear - 2019 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 97 (3):465-482.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Philosophy of Humor.Joshua Shaw - 2010 - Philosophy Compass 5 (2):112-126.
Just Joking: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Humor.Berys Nigel Gaut - 1998 - Philosophy and Literature 22 (1):51-68.
Truly Funny: Humor, Irony, and Satire as Moral Criticism.E. M. Dadlez - 2011 - Journal of Aesthetic Education 45 (1):1-17.
The Importance of Humor in Teaching Philosophy.Al Gini - 2011 - Teaching Philosophy 34 (2):143-149.
Humor.Aaron Smuts - 2006 - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Do Moral Flaws Enhance Amusement?Aaron Smuts - 2009 - American Philosophical Quarterly 46 (2):151-163.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-12-01

Total views
204 ( #56,704 of 2,507,664 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
7 ( #102,797 of 2,507,664 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes