Wisecracks: Humor and Morality in Everyday Life

by David Shoemaker

A philosopher’s case for the importance of good—if ethically questionable—humor.

A good sense of humor is key to the good life, but a joke taken too far can get anyone into trouble. Where to draw the line is not as simple as it may seem. After all, even the most innocent quips between friends rely on deception, sarcasm, and stereotypes and often run the risk of disrespect, meanness, and harm. How do we face this dilemma without taking ourselves too seriously?

In Wisecracks , philosopher David Shoemaker examines this interplay between humor and morality and ultimately argues that even morally suspect humor is an essential part of ethical life. Shoemaker shows how improvised “wisecracks” between family and friends—unlike scripted stand-up, sketches, or serials—help us develop an essential human the ability to carry on and find the funny in tragedy. In developing a new ethics of humor in defense of questionable gibes, Wisecracks offers a powerful case for humor as a healing presence in human life.

Genres: Nonfiction

252 pages, Paperback

Published May 1, 2024

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.

Reviews

[Krista · Rating 4 out of 5]

We’ve got excellent reasons to engage in the wisecracking life, but we may also have serious moral qualms about doing so. My title points to a kind of pun: Wisecracks may both bridge cracks and crack bridges, bond people and divide them. Which one occurs depends crucially on what role, if any, empathy plays in the exchange.

David Shoemaker is a much-published philosopher and a Professor at the Sage School of Philosophy at Cornell University, and in our modern reality of social media piling-on and cancel culture, he was interested in investigating what role humour (specifically wisecracks) plays in human interaction and whether there is something objectively valuable about this kind of “put down” humour that could speak back to the “prigs” with their efforts to silence others with a blanket “There’s nothing funny about ______” attitude. Wisecracks is the result of that investigation, and as Shoemaker is a fan of wisecracking humour himself, he entertainingly balances scholarship with snark and assembles what I found to be a compelling argument in favour of this type of joking around. This is exactly the sort of thing I like to read about, and it was well done. (Note: I read an ARC through NetGalley and passages quoted may not be in their final forms.)

Wisecracks are ways of interacting with other people, but they are distinctive because what makes wisecracks aesthetically good — amusing — is often the very same thing that can make them morally bad. They tweak or ignore some of the norms that sustain our interpersonal lives, such as our expectations of trust and honesty, our desires for respect and equal worth, our concern to be viewed as the particular people we are (rather than as members of some group). These features make them very different, and far more interesting, than jokes.

As a philosopher, Shoemaker begins by defining terms: the difference between jokes and wisecracks, the surprisingly long list of elements (his “kitchen sink theory”) that can make a statement humorous, and the admittedly tautologically cute definition of amusing as that which a “properly developed, refined, and unobstructed human sense of humor would respond to with amusement” (each element of which is further explored). I found it interesting that Shoemaker found no philosophical scholarship on wisecracking in particular (although there has been research on written “jokes”, which Shoemaker contrarily argues have zero moral element; a position which piqued me), but as someone whose own family regularly roasts one another at the dinner table, I can certainly agree that this kind of humour — and especially wisecracks based on inside information and long memories — serves to raise the mood and reinforce bonds (as they say on Comedy Central: we only roast the ones we love). Along the way, Shoemaker addresses taboo topics (racism, sexism, disabilities, sexual assault), those without “properly developed” senses of humour (such as folks with autism or psychopaths), those with “obstructed” senses of humour (buffoons — they who mistakenly, and annoyingly, see humour in everything — and prigs, who refuse to look for humour behind a wisecrack based on misguided principles). And I found all of this to be fascinating and compelling.

What crucially matters in responding correctly to both the funniness and the moral status of a wisecrack are the wisecrackers intentions and motives, which amount to what the wisecracker means by it and what his or her attitudes are toward others affected or targeted by the wisecrack.

Ultimately, intentions are everything; the love behind the roast. There’s a passage in which Shoemaker compares a picture of Demi Lovato getting “slimed” at the Nickelodeon Kids’ Choice Awards and Stephen King’s Carrie having the bucket of pigs’ blood dumped on her head at Prom: a pan to the audience in each situation shows people laughing hysterically, but if you had to explain the difference in the two similar-looking scenes to a visitor from another planet (my own analogy), you’d harken to the pranksters’ intentions and desired effects and easily be able to explain that one was meant in fun and the other in cruelty. And when it comes to wisecracks, whether at the dinner table or on social media, the “morality” of any quip ought to be judged in these terms as well. Very interesting and timely stuff, well argued.

[Janalyn, the blind reviewer · Rating 4 out of 5]

In wisecracks by David Shoemaker we learn the difference between funny one liners wisecracks and put downs. He covers every kind of creation of joke there is and talks about the morality and in morality he also talks about jokes between friends and strangers. He talks about the morality of using jokes to degrade put down isolate ET see although I found there was a little repetitiveness to the book I do believe there was a benefit to his effort in where some may find this to be common sense there are those that will not. I don’t believe Mr. Schumaker left any group out when it comes to making people laugh with them and at them. this is a great book and one I definitely recommend. Because I must admit more than once I laughed while reading the book. I want to thank the university of Chicago press for my free art copy via NetGalley please forgive any mistakes as I am blind and dictate my review.

[Chris]

Parts of this were very tedious, but overall, it is very informative. It expanded my understanding of humor, how and why…and why not.
Also, because it’s an election year, it also shined a light on the Dark Triad —narcissists, Machiavellians, and psychopaths—of characters that would be kings. We’ll see in two weeks, right?
Shoemaker’s argument seems to be that there are many jokes that are just not offensive,and genuinely funny, but that the parties involved need to have the right frame in which to tell it, or hear it. It might be wiser—since jokes, wisecracks are plentiful, and opportunities for them are abundant, to just hold one’s tongue rather than risk offending, or having to expound on the wisecrack, the deeper meaning, how it was meant, and how it should be taken. That explanation would suck the humor out of the most hilarious jibe.