posted
This may get a little long winded. (Those of you who actually read some of my posts through will be astonished, I'm sure.)
It is an oft-repeated straw that all humor comes from tragedy. I've never found this to be entirely accurate. A great deal of humor, especially modern humor, comes from what has been described as "cognitive dissonance". The punchline is funny not because it meets expectations, but because it counters them, or parallels them in something like dream logic.
Dogbert: "How are you enjoying that new book, 'The History of Glue'?" Dilbert: I couldn't put it down. [beat]
I sometimes wonder if humor isn't to some degree a survival mechanism. If something befuddles you, you may freeze, perhaps long enough to become prey. Humor allows you to laugh and move on, and adapt to unusual circumstances, whether it's the "black humor" that surrounds tragedy or the humor of "cognitive dissonance": Huh. That's funny. Okay, moving on...
So, about morality. (This will tie in. Promise.)
Has anyone seen "Little Tree Friends"? If you haven't, don't bother. I'm not recommending it. In essence, LTF consists of incredibly cute, cartoon-style animals getting themselves killed in various incredibly violent, gory, arbitrary, and often prolonged ways.
I don't find it funny. But if others do, it's because of cognitive dissonance.
What do we expect from something we describe as "cute"? Helplessness, gentleness, a need to be sheltered and protected. Whether it's a kitten or a puppy or a human child, our reaction seems to be an inherent one.
It's been said by philosophers that one's immediate reaction to the sight of a child about to fall down a well is to save the child. If one pauses, one may think "That's the child of my enemy... If I'm seen, someone may think I put the child in danger in the first place... I don't want to put the effort into running to save the child, when it might be for nothing anyway..." And so on. But that first reaction is to save.
I suspect that it's buried in almost all of us, not just with children, but with anything "cute"... And I can't help but notice that certain features, judging by cartoons and art, are "cute" in any culture.
So... Is there an inherent human morality?
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure that I agree with that definition of cognitive dissonance. In Soc/Psych, CD is encountered when you perform some action that goes against your morals or beliefs. For example - "I am a good husband" + "I am having an affair" creates dissonance. The two aren't compatible.
In the case of the LTF, the dissonance that I might see is "I am laughing at this" + "senseless violence is not funny".
Not quite on topic, but I thought I'd throw that out there.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair enough. I'm strictly Psych 101, so my terminology may not all be accurate. Still, for this purpose, I think it can stand, if you don't object.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you wish to read some fairly well thought out psychological reasoning along very similar lines, I recommend "The Act of Creation" by Koestler. It's a book that explores the creative, and often less easily defined actions of human beings, with laughter and humor being a major element in the first 1/3 of the book.
Koestler's line of thought (which happens to appeal to me), is that act of laughter serves as an anti-empathic device for human beings, sort of a precaution to overwhelming oneself with feelings of woe at the insistance of other peoples' (and animals, and inanimate objects). The broad assumption made there is that for anything to be funny, someone must sacrifice (self-image, injury, and such); something has to be the butt of the joke.
Short answer to the morality bit... Yes, there is an inherent human morality, it just isn't a matter of black and white. I have trouble believing that any person, regardless of history and environment, would be completely amoral.
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, they're not the Little Tree Friends, they're the Happy Tree Friends. And they're very disturbing.
Posts: 202 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi: Sure Sterling, I didn't mean to come off as condescending. I just wanted to clarify.
<abashed>
I wasn't offended, and I didn't take your comment as condescension. I just wanted to acknowledge that my use of the term might not quite match that of psychology, much like scientists often quail at the use of "theory" to mean "hypothesis". In this context, I'm just hoping you'll accept the use of the term, since I don't have another one for the phenomenon at hand.
quote:Originally posted by WntrMute: No. Morality is taught behavior, in my opinion.
That's fine. But can you give me some reason for that opinion?
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morality may be a taught behavior, but protecting the young is, I think, inheirent. There is a reason why God and/or Nature made babies (animal and human) cute. It is so their parents won't kill them. And so that if, for whatever reason, their parents are out of the picture, other adults will want to care for them.
---------
Two guys walk into a bar. First guy turns to the second guy and says, "You didn't see it either, did you?"
Posts: 364 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by WntrMute: No. Morality is taught behavior, in my opinion.
That's fine. But can you give me some reason for that opinion?
I think "inherent morality" is an oxymoron. Dogs and Cats inherently care for their young, feeding and protecting them. Would you say they are being "moral"? Would you say a cat that didn't was "immoral" or simply abnormal?
To me "morality" must necessarily be a learned behavior because part of "morality" is choice. A person who doesn't steal only because he couldn't get away with it, or only because there was nothing worth stealing, isn't being "moral". Likewise, a man who doesn't sleep with a woman only because he finds her unattractive isn't behaving "morally". If there's no temptation, there is no virtue in resisting it.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thin CD would still be the peoper term, actualy. There are levels of CD, adn that type of humor is a low level form of CD.
In those small amounts CD is not distructive, but in larger amounts, like the other example above, it can become a serious issue, causing or contributing to a number of psych/self esteem problems.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think CD can be the right term; I know I've felt it myself. I've laughed at things I knew weren't funny, precisely because they weren't. I don't know how to explain it.
However, when we're talking about most instances (for example, humorous puns), some other word is required. I remember reading CS Lewis' take on 'dirty' jokes. He uses some word to describe them that would be perfect here (one guy tells sex jokes to cause (this word), the other guy causes (this word) so he can talk about sex). For the life of me, I can't remember it! Maybe it's in Screwtape. I'll look today.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think "inherent morality" is an oxymoron. Dogs and Cats inherently care for their young, feeding and protecting them. Would you say they are being "moral"? Would you say a cat that didn't was "immoral" or simply abnormal?
To me "morality" must necessarily be a learned behavior because part of "morality" is choice. A person who doesn't steal only because he couldn't get away with it, or only because there was nothing worth stealing, isn't being "moral". Likewise, a man who doesn't sleep with a woman only because he finds her unattractive isn't behaving "morally". If there's no temptation, there is no virtue in resisting it. [/QB]
As far as so-called "lower animals" like cats and dogs go, I would have to say there remains some contraversy whether they posess the level of intelligence necessary to make what humans call choices. If an animal negelected or harmed its own young, one would be hard-pressed to definitively say whether it chose to do so, or if its genetic wiring was screwy. A dog who protects a boy from another animal might be moral, or it might simply be getting an instinctive impulse from a long strain of breeding herd-protectors.
The mention of having sex with a member of the opposite sex raises some interesting questions. For most, there's a biological imperative to reproduce, and part of commonly defined social morality is in _not_ seeking new mates in inappropriate circumstances (one is already in an established relationship, the potential mate is already in an established relationship, etc.) Morality is defined by an intellectual refusal of an instinctive drive. In other cases, morality seems to either consist of not doing what one desires to do, or doing what one believes is morally right despite danger, discomfort, or other reasons one normally might choose to do otherwise.
But is it possible to be moral in doing what one desires to do?
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
