Discussion response

100words each

1. I believe vulgar comedies, such as South Park, do encourage deep reflection on ethics, which in turn encourage virtuous behavior. First of all, I wanted to start out with why I think the vulgarity in South Park is necessary in my opinion. Like Irwin and Kyle (2010) explain, South Park generates discussion and debate of issues that are not talked about and often overlooked in our society, like religion, ethics and democracy for just some examples. By using so much vulgarity, South Park verbalizes the issues we often do not talk about, and it allows viewers of the show to laugh at the characters antics and stories that are told throughout all the episodes. By enticing laughter, it frees everyone from any repression they feel from not talking about these issues South Park puts focus on, and it lets them talk freely about them promoting discussion.

South Park like the Simpsons I believe encourage deep reflection on ethics because it makes you think about how good your life is compared to others, and makes you think about what is right and wrong, or better and worse about many issues you normally never think about, or never discuss, as ethics is a branch of philosophy known as moral philosophy (McKinnon, 2015, p. 3).

I related a lot to the short video “My Life is Really Evil” with Louie C. K. One reason is I drive an Infiniti and it made me realize I too, can drive another less luxurious vehicle and make better use of my money to maybe help better other peoples lives that are less unfortunate than I am. I use this as an example of how comedy, like South Park, the Simpsons, or stand-up comedy like Louie C. K’s can encourage reflection on ethics and morals. It definitely made me think about my choice of buying my car. Was I right to do so? Was I being a bad person?

I think Arendt and Socrates wanted everyone to reflect on ethics in any way that helped them encourage them to start thinking about ethics in their own lives, whether It be through watching a vulgar tv show or something else. Like Irwin and Kyle (2010) state in chapter one, a show like South Park breaks the silence of our culture’s repression and starts Socratic dialogue. This helps us think and analyze our desires to become better. It puts us all on a path to think about how we live with one another and with ourselves, which is what I believe Socrates and Arendt wanted the most for everyone where ethics is involved.

2. To what extent might you concur with William Young that vulgar comedies such as South Park, or even TheSimpsons, encourage such a deep reflection on ethics and ultimately encourage virtuous behavior? Is this the type of reflection that Arendt and Socrates intended?

In the readings, although Socrates fate was already decided. I completely agree with his explanation example of the horse breeders, and very few can make a change in such a way that he is being accused. His understanding and wisdom of “I know that I don’t know” is current today. Free thinking isn’t always a free perception of your thoughts and views. A couple of years back, I read an article that a psychologist Daniela S. Hugelshofer recommended that humor goes about as support against suffering and misery. Once vulgar comedies become normal for that particular culture, it perhaps becomes morally correct.

To what extent is author Sean McAleer right when he proclaims, “The Office has much to teach us about Aristotle’s ethics, for its major male characters illustrate the structure of a character virtue as a mean between extremes” (162)?

I agree that much was taught by The Office sitcom. Season Two, episode 11 which aired halfway during that season, “Booze Cruise” remains as a standout amongst the most flawlessly organized and executed Office scenes, highlighting both entertainingly improper conduct from Michael just as a sound does of heart as proof by Jim trusting in Michael about his crush on Pam. In all actuality, Michael couldn’t keep that mystery down for long yet it made for a touching scene in any case.

Speculations concentrating on the advancement of laughter point to it as an imperative adjustment for social communication. Studies have demonstrated that individuals are bound to chuckle because of a video cut with canned laughter than to one without a laugh track and that individuals are multiple times bound to laugh within the sight of others than alone. A worldwide investigation directed in 2016 found that over the globe, individuals can get on the equivalent inconspicuous expressive gestures from giggling. Tests of laughter were gathered from sets of English-talking understudies — a few companions and a few students — recorded in an experimental lab. An integrative group made up of in excess of 30 researchers, anthropologists, and scientists at that point played sound pieces of this giggling to 966 audience members from 24 different cultures spreading over six continents, from indigenous people in New Guinea to working-class individuals in big cities in India and Europe. Members at that point were asked whether they thought the two individuals chuckling were companions or outsiders. By and large, the outcomes were strikingly predictable over every one of the 24 societies: People’s speculations about the connection between the laughers were right roughly 60% of the time.