THE ETHICS OF LAUGHTER 

Stephen M. Reynolds, Ph. D.

The writer was at one time asked to contribute articles to what proved to be on the whole an excellent guide to Christian ethics.¹ He writes this general approval with no judgment as to the merit of the articles he wrote, leaving that judgment to others. Without any intent to damage the reputation of that good book he must at this time write of a glaring omission, an omission it shares with books on ethics in general. Laughter was not made the subject of an article and yet it is a human activity in which almost everyone engages from childhood on into old age. Its part in the conduct of every child, youth, man or woman is far more important than many of the subjects which are in fact dealt with in this useful reference book.²  For example, the average person does not necessarily need to read an article on "Existential Ethics," “Max Weber," or "The Kinsey Report." Of course Existentialism, sociology, and sex are matters of great concern to advanced students of ethics, and something on these subjects is necessary in any good book on the subject. The general contents of the book I commend highly; and though the omission of an article on laughter is mentioned, it is to point out that this failure is one which it shares with a great many books which purport to be guides in all matters of ethics. May books on ethics in the future include laughter! 

Laughter is universal in mankind and is a key to the understanding of the character of individuals and groups. Decent people laugh in holy joy when a much desired child is born, when an engagement to marriage is announced, when a happy couple is married, when dear friends long parted meet again, and on other happy occasions. Sexually deviant or permissive people laugh when a joke is told in which homosexuality or other sexually perverse practices are the theme. Cruel people think it is uproariously funny if a cruel situation is presented for their attention. Hateful people laugh when someone they don't like comes to grief. Wicked people who think they are clever laugh when a sly trickster is described as making a dupe out of another person. This inflates their pride and to have the pride of a proud person suddenly inflated is highly delightful to him 

On the contrary decent people are appalled at sexual perversity: they are sympathetic to those who suffer cruelty and are not amused at the trickster who deceives an unwary person. 

Among the few writings available that touch on laughter in ethics is an article in the New Catholic Encyclopedia by D. R Wall.³ He writes: "Humorous situations that involve aggression and combat appear funnier to those with repressed feelings of hostility. Individuals do not laugh at misadventures or discreditable aspects of objects for which they have positive sentiments; they do laugh, however, at the expense of other objects. In this sense, laughter is an unhampered activity whereby one can satisfy otherwise thwarted desires." 

The Christian ethicist following the teaching of Christ and the Apostles must rid himself of repressed feelings of hostility. With regard to Satan he should have feelings of hostility and there is no need to repress them. As for fellow human beings who are, or appear to be, servants of Satan, his attitude should be one of compassion with a desire to win them that they may become servants of Christ. Feelings of hostility to them, open or repressed, are forbidden to him by our Lord who teaches universal love. He should put off "the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts" and should "put on the new man which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." (Ephesians 4:22-23) 

An example of one who used laughter without obscenity or cruelty is Desiderius Erasmus. His book In Praise of Folly was published (in Latin) in 1511. In it Folly, personified as a young woman, is represented as lecturing in praise of herself. By so doing he helped prepare the way for the Reformation which came shortly after his book appeared. As a critic has written, "Erasmus makes ridiculous the dishonest and irreligious monks who infested some of the orders. He attacks, both by analysis and parody, the methods of biblical interpretation used by scholastics, or by interpreters without Greek or Hebrew."⁴ 

These are not the only merits of this excellent book for it shows that wit and humor can be used by a person with a clean and compassionate mind in such a way as to give "light on the dark areas of man's world." 

Another writer who used wit and humor in the form of satire to stimulate high and noble thoughts in the reader was Blaise Pascal, French mathematician and satirist of the seventeenth century. In his Provincial Letters he exposed by satire the evil casuistry of the Jesuits who were then at the height of their power. Of this exposure it has been said that the laxist casuistry of the Jesuits was made not only odious but ridiculous in such a way that a production merely serious would not have brought about. 

Of this work of Pascal, Voltaire, a master of satire himself, justly observed that the finest comedies of Moliere have not more point.  Erasmus and Pascal thus used wit and humor in such a way as to win a victory over religious error which was harming humanity. But in praising mirth‑provoking wit the Christian student and teacher of ethics must refrain from jokes told whose effect is merely to cause laughter rather than horror of sin and instruction in sound morals. 

As an example of an unethical laugh-producing story told by a minister of the Gospel in a sermon broadcast on television and also published, students of the ethics of laughter are invited to consider the story as quoted below and some comments on its ethics. 

An anecdote was told, not necessarily a witty production of the preacher, but perhaps borrowed from some crude comedian whose purpose was in no way connected with the Gospel of our gracious Lord Jesus Christ. 

The preacher said, “But I like the story about the rather unscrupulous lawyer who did some work for a mafia boss who felt that he had obtained the perfect bagman because he was deaf and dumb, so supposedly he couldn't squeal if caught. Things went along all right for a couple of years, but then one day he was asked to carry a very large sum of money ($250,000) and both the money and the bagman disappeared. A number of days later the henchman who worked for the mafia chieftain found the man and dragged him to headquarters. The mafia boss was very angry and said to the bagman, ‘I want my money. Give me my money back.’ 

"The bagman said he couldn't hear him and he couldn't understand him. So, in frustration the boss said to the henchman, 'Get that lawyer, that sleazy lawyer who works for us sometimes. He's got a brother who's deaf, and he knows how to talk to this fellow.' So they got this rather unscrupulous lawyer and the mafia boss said, `Tell this fellow that he's got my money and I want it back.' The lawyer did as he was told. The fellow answered, `What money?' With that, the mafia boss lost his temper altogether, pulled out his gun, jumped up and stuck it in the bagman's nose and said, `Listen, you creep, you've got my quarter million dollars! Give it back or I'm going to blow your head off' The lawyer translated and the bagman said, ‘Oh, that money! Nobody explained it to me that way before. It's in my backyard. I buried it three paces due north of the oak tree and three feet down.’ The mafia chief said, ‘What did he say?’ The lawyer replied, `He said you're a low-life slimeball and you haven't got enough nerve to pull the trigger.’” 

Here ends the jest, followed by loud laughter from some members of the congregation. The rest of the sermon was very good, but it is not the purpose of the writer of this article at this time to praise the sermon or the preacher (although in other circumstances he is most happy to do so) but now to examine the joke and the laughter it provoked from the point of view of Christian ethics. 

The laughter springs from the delight the hearer has in the quick wit of the lawyer who seizes the moment of opportunity to gain wealth for himself. The hearers who laugh have no sympathy for the deaf and dumb man who if the incident should proceed to its logical conclusion will be shot to death and no doubt spend eternity in hell. Thus as Wall has written, the audience having no positive sentiments for the deaf and dumb bagman laugh uproariously at the predicament he is in. Presumably the audience has no sympathy for the lawyer and no wish he should enrich himself but forgetting all matters of right and wrong they laugh at his quickness of wit. This laughter does not glorify God. 

The preacher defends the story as "good natured ribbing" and says he wonders “how so many Christians lost their sense of humor somewhere along the way to maturity.” He also says it is intended merely "to lighten the weight of a serious message.” 

How does this lighten any weight of a sound Gospel message? The hearer visualizes the deaf and dumb man shot dead with a bullet in his head, the unrighteous lawyer later going to dig up the money, after the mafia boss has disposed of the body and reconciled himself to the fact that he will never get his money back. In these days of horrible violence, how does this help anyone or lighten the weight of a serious message? 

Students and practitioners of Christian ethics should reject this joke and they would do well to study and seek to attain to the witty satire of the devout Christian, Blaise Pascal. He never visualizes a situation where one evil person deceives another evil person into killing a third evil person. This story as a whole is horrible and only one blinded in some way about ethics can consider it a laughing matter. 

Proverbs 26:18 and 19 say "As a mad man who casteth firebrands, arrows and death. So is the man who deceiveth his neighbor, and saith, Am I not in sport?" 

How can a preacher know that someone, a border-line case only slightly removed from a violent crime, might not seek to imitate the wit of the "rather unscrupulous lawyer"? As far as the story goes the lawyer was on the point of triumphing because of his quick wit. 

Wit is God's gift to some human beings. If we are given it, will we use it to destroy like the lawyer of the story, or to glorify God like Erasmus and Pascal? May God help us all to choose aright. 

In Christian ethics we should all do as much as we can to help people to laugh in holy joy. 

It is said that at the present time some charismatics are laughing at Christian services claiming this to be a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. Christians should not condemn this without solid scriptural evidence, but on the other hand they should not be hasty in accepting it. If they accept it and it is either a delusion or a fraud, they would be offensive to God; but if they deny it is from God, they would be offending the Holy Spirit if it should really be a gift from Him. The fact that laughter is never mentioned in the Bible as a gift of the Holy Spirit is a strong reason to believe that it is either a delusion or a fraud. 

In conclusion, a Christian doctrine of the ethics of laughter should be based on firm Biblical principles. One well-established principle is the Golden Rule: "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." (Mt. 7:12; Lk. 6:31) 

If we do not wish to be humiliated, we should not make jests that humiliate others. We should follow strictly Ephesians 5:3 and 4. "But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not once be named among you, as becometh saints: neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient; but rather giving of thanks." 

A Christian guided by the highest standards of ethics must distinguish between foolish jesting (which does not conform to the Golden Rule) and wholesome witticisms (which do conform). A joke which leaves a human being, even though a bad person, in a position where he is seen as about to be murdered does not conform. On the other hand, a witticism of a godly man of long ago does. A man seeking to try a learned Christian asked him what God was doing before He created the heaven and the earth. The saint replied, "He was making a hell to punish the inquisitive." This witticism was appropriate and conformed to the Golden Rule. The inquirer of course knew that a serious answer was impossible. No mere human can possibly know the answer. The reply was not cruel. The inquirer surely knew that the man of God did not mean to condemn him to hell. The jest was intended to edify the inquirer and to teach him to keep his questions within proper limits, and to do this in a witty way which would remain in his memory. This was not foolish talking but appropriate in the circumstances. It would not, however, be appropriate in a sermon where people of all grades of understanding are present. Some might even take it literally. 

1. Baker's Dictionary of Christian Ethics, edited by Carl F. H. Henry. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, c. 1973.

2. Two other subjects on which Christians and others need instruction and which are omitted in this reference book are taxation and tithing

3. Vol. 8, p. 533.

4. "The Folly of Erasmus," an essay by Hoyt Hopewell Hudson in The Praise of Folly. Princeton University Press, 1941, p. xii.