The Ultimate South Park and Philosophy (19 page)

STAN:
What? What’s the big deal?

CARTMAN:
What’s the big deal? You guys, they just made fun of the religion of an entire group of people. What, you guys think that’s okay? Do you care at all about people’s feelings?

KYLE:
Since when do you care about being sensitive to people’s religion, Cartman?

STAN:
Yeah, you rip on people’s religion all the time!

CARTMAN:
That’s different! I’m just a little boy! That’s a cartoon! Millions of people watch it! How would you feel, Kyle, if there was a cartoon on television that made fun of Jews all the time? Huh?

KYLE:
Uhhh …

CARTMAN:
I’m telling you guys, it’s wrong!

According to Cartman, it’s wrong for the creators of
Family Guy
to use blasphemous humor in this instance because it will offend many people and, thereby, hurt their feelings. What compounds the wrong is that “millions of people watch it,” so the offended Muslims will know that millions of people are seeing this depiction of their prophet. The fact that the show is so popular intensifies the insult and increases the unhappiness of the Muslims. Here, Cartman is arguing like a ­utilitarian, or at least he’s backing up his view with reasons that a utilitarian would recognize as relevant. (Of course, Cartman doesn’t really care about Muslims. He just hates
Family Guy
and wants it off the air, but that doesn’t change the argument.)

The unhappiness that results from offending people is a direct consequence of blasphemous humor, but there may also be some bad
indirect
consequences as well. Utilitarianism demands that we take all consequences (those that are reasonably foreseeable, at least) into account, both direct and indirect. So, what negative consequences might indirectly result from blasphemous humor? In her article “‘Just Joking!’ The Ethics of Humor,” Robin Tapley writes that joking is “another way of putting a belief out into the community. Whether one personally holds a belief to be true is really not the point. It is that beliefs put out into the community, especially in the disarming guise of humor, have the power to challenge, desensitize, confirm, or reinforce our own beliefs and the beliefs that are prevalent in the society.”
⁶
Here, Tapley is writing specifically about jokes, but what she says would hold true for humor in general.

If Tapley is right, the importance for our discussion is clear. Blasphemous humor could lead people to be less tolerant and sensitive in their dealings with certain religious groups, or religious people in general. More people might be tempted to respond to religious claims like a member of the Unified Atheist League in “Go God Go”: “Ha, ha, ha. You believe in a supernatural being.” Of course, I can’t
prove
that the blasphemous episodes have any lasting desensitizing effects, and I don’t know of any research that specifically investigates the relationship between exposure to blasphemy and religious sensitivity and tolerance. But there is good reason to believe that what people watch on television and in the movies can have an effect on their attitudes and emotions. Consider the research that supports the claim that exposure to media violence often has the effect of desensitizing people to violence and increasing violent and aggressive behavior.
⁷
Of course, exposure to violence and exposure to blasphemy are different, but it seems reasonable to suppose that exposure to blasphemous humor could have a desensitizing effect. It’s clear how all of this relates to happiness and unhappiness. A lack of sensitivity and tolerance leads to ridicule, conflict, and a lack of respect for others, and, thereby, unhappiness.

So far, we’ve focused on the negative consequences of Parker and Stone’s blasphemous humor, looking at ways that it leads, or could lead, to unhappiness. But there are positive consequences as well, and no utilitarian evaluation is complete without looking at both sides of the coin. Again, we need to look at both direct and indirect consequences. Quite clearly, there is at least one positive direct consequence: many people find the blasphemous humor funny. They are entertained by it, and when people are entertained, they tend to be happier. There’s really no need to offer extensive support for that.

What good
indirect
consequences result from the blasphemous humor in
South Park
? Let’s return to “Bloody Mary.” There was much more going on in that episode than the images of a statue of Mary spraying—well, you know. Here’s a bit more about the plot. Stan’s dad, Randy, is convinced that he is an alcoholic and that he is powerless to control his addiction. When Randy finds out about the bleeding statue, he believes that if he is touched by Mary’s “divine ass blood” he will be cured, so he goes to visit the statue, gets sprayed by the blood, and believes that he is cured by this “miracle.” He’s sober for five days, but then finds out that the bleeding statue is not a miracle (recall the pope’s words: “A chick bleeding out her vagina is no miracle”), so he decides that he has not been cured and begins drinking heavily. Stan is upset and they have the following exchange:

STAN:
Dad, you don’t have to do this! You have the power. You haven’t drank since seeing the statue.

RANDY:
But the statue wasn’t a miracle!

STAN:
Yeah. The statue wasn’t a miracle, Dad. So that means you did it. That means you didn’t have a drink for five days all on your own.

The message here is clear. According to what Stan says, rather than looking to a divine power for help with our problems, we should ­recognize that we have plenty of willpower and that we can help ourselves.

Now, we’re not concerned here with examining the value of this particular message, and Alcoholics Anonymous—which is being satirized in this episode—has helped a great many people. What we’re concerned with (and this won’t come as a surprise to
South Park
fans) is showing that this episode has a message. It has content and presents ideas and, in its own way, makes an argument. Sometimes the message is good, and other times it’s bad. But, because there is a message,
South Park
has the potential to make people think. It can, and often does, promote reflection and discussion about important issues. The other chapters in this book are testament to that.

But why the blasphemy? Is it really necessary for the good consequences? Yes. People are too complacent. Unless they are somehow shocked, many people neglect discussing important moral and social issues. To quote the character John Doe from the movie
Seven
, “Wanting people to listen, you can’t just tap them on the shoulder anymore. You have to hit them with a sledgehammer. And then you’ll notice you have their strict attention.”
⁸
(I’m aware that the character is a serial killer, but I like the quotation.) It would be wonderful if people were more inclined to engage in reflection and discussion about important issues; however, for whatever reason, they seem not to be so inclined. Blasphemous humor can shock, unsettle, prod, and provoke people into thinking and talking.

And to make the tie into utilitarianism explicit, reflection and discussion are beneficial to individuals and society as a whole. A society in which there is more discourse and greater exchange of ideas is, on balance, happier than a society with less social dialogue.
⁹
In another book,
On Liberty
, Mill details the benefits of open dialogue. Discussing ideas, he says, can help to bring us closer to the truth, and even when it doesn’t, discussion of someone’s false opinion can help to prevent the contrary true opinion from becoming “a dead dogma,” as opposed to “a living truth.”
¹⁰

So, we’ve explored the negative and positive consequences, both direct and indirect, of blasphemous humor in
South Park
. Now we need to consider the two main alternatives and their consequences. The first alternative is
South Park
as is, with the blasphemous humor. The second alternative is
South Park
without the blasphemous humor. If Parker and Stone took this second alternative, many of the negative consequences would be avoided, but many of the positive consequences would be lost. Sure, the people who were offended would be spared the offense, and the risk of desensitization and promotion of intolerance would be avoided. But the show wouldn’t have been as funny or as shocking and controversial and, probably, it would have a much smaller audience. And if watching
South Park
can be a valuable experience, as I have been arguing, then many people would have gone without that experience.

Comparing these two alternatives through a utilitarian lens involves attempting to figure out which course of action would ­produce a greater balance of happiness over unhappiness. Figuring this out is, predictably, difficult. First of all, we aren’t even close to ­having all of the relevant information about the actual consequences of the blasphemous humor in
South Park
. Throughout this discussion, I’ve been using generalizations, analogies, and intuitions. This is often unavoidable when examining a moral issue through a utilitarian lens. Secondly, there is no precise way to measure happiness and unhappiness, so our judgments are imprecise and, to a large extent, intuitive.

All that said, it seems that a greater balance of happiness over unhappiness is brought about by making
South Park
with the blasphemous humor. Of course, people are offended by it, and this fact can’t be ignored. But I wonder how many people are actually directly caused significant pain by the blasphemy in
South Park
. Certain media watchdog groups have spoken out against the show, and the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights kicked up a lot of dust over “Bloody Mary.” But most people who find the blasphemous humor offensive probably don’t watch the show in the first place. If they hear about the blasphemous episodes, they may be somewhat distressed, but they probably don’t get too terribly upset about the latest
South Park
episode. In short, we need to remember that interest groups aren’t necessarily expressing the widespread outrage of the sectors of the population they claim to represent.

Regarding the potential for negative indirect consequences, I’m skeptical as to the extent to which the blasphemous humor in the context of most
South Park
episodes promotes insensitivity and intolerance, especially given that there are aspects of the show that may counteract whatever negative influences there are. Consider the fact that Uncle Jimbo, an intolerant, closed-minded character, is often ­portrayed as a complete idiot. Also, many of the episodes contain messages of tolerance. In “Go, God, Go,” atheist Richard Dawkins is mocked for his supposedly intolerant attitude toward religious ­people. He is ridiculed for apparently teaching “that using logic and reason isn’t enough. You have to be a dick to everyone who doesn’t think like you.” That episode ends with a character from the future stating one of the lessons: “Tell everyone in the past for us that no one single answer is ever the answer.” In another episode, “Super Best Friends,” Stan gives voice to the following lesson: “See, all religions have something valuable to teach, but, just like the Super Best Friends learned, it requires a little bit of them all.” Whether or not that statement is true, it is certainly an expression of tolerance.

South Park
’s blasphemy operates within the context of an episode and a series of episodes, making the evaluation of its use a complex matter. But all in all, the blasphemy draws a lot of attention to a show that can be very rewarding.
South Park
is indeed a rare show. It is massively successful
and
it tackles important issues, often very explicitly. The characters make arguments all the time. They state their views clearly, and you don’t have to be a careful viewer constantly searching for subtext to get the message and the food for thought.

I’ve argued that a public presentation containing blasphemous humor can have negative consequences that are undeniably morally relevant and that it is morally justifiable to use blasphemous humor
if it is an important part of a presentation that has significant social value
. In other words, there must be positive consequences to offset the negative ones. This view has the implication that blasphemous humor “just to piss people off” is morally wrong. If there are no, or minimal, foreseeable positive consequences to offset the negative ones, the blasphemous humor is morally unjustifiable. This implication seems right. Whatever else morality is about, an important part of morality involves being concerned with the consequences of actions and refraining from hurting others pointlessly or merely for profit. So, when people use blasphemous humor gratuitously or merely for financial gain, they are indeed acting wrongly and deserve our moral condemnation, God damn it.

1
. See John Stuart Mill,
Utilitarianism
(Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2003).

2
. See, for example, the entry for “blasphemy” in
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary
, ed. William Trumble and Lesley Brown (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).

3
. See, for example, the entry for “humour” in
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary
.

4
. Mill,
Utilitarianism
, 7.

5
. In case you spent a portion of 2006 under a rock, after the republication in European newspapers of Danish cartoons that depicted Muhammad as a terrorist, violence erupted in, among other places, Afghanistan.

6
. Robin Tapley, “‘Just Joking!’ The Ethics of Humor,”
Yeditepe’de Felsefe
4 (2005): 175.

7
. For a discussion of this claim, see the research and discussion in Steven Kirsh,
Children, Adolescents, and Media Violence: A Critical Look at the Research
(Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2006). See also: Dave Grossman and Gloria DeGaetano,
Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill: A Call to Action Against TV, Movie, and Video Game Violence
(New York: Crown Books, 1999); the papers in Ulla Carlsson (ed.),
Children and Media Violence
(Philadelphia: Coronet Books, 1998); and Henry Nardone and Gregory Bassham, “Pissin’ Metal: Columbine, Malvo, and the Matrix of Violence,” in William Irwin (ed.),
More Matrix and Philosophy: Revolutions and Reloaded Decoded
(Chicago: Open Court, 2005), 187–190.