Territory – Comedy. Object – Offensive Humour. Concepts – Ethics, Liberty, Utilitarianism. Thinkers – Mill, Freud, Bakhtin. The Two Ways In Which Humour Can Be Evaluated: The aesthetical question concerns when it is fitting to laugh at something, and the ethical question, when is it morally wrong to laugh at something. For example if you claim that you should not laugh at sexist jokes, then in the aesthetic sense that means sexist jokes lack the features that something must have in order to be funny. If someone is amused by these jokes, then in this sense there has been an error of judgement, it’s not that they have done anything morally wrong, rather these kind of jokes fail as comedy. The ethical question, on the other hand, identifies something as morally wrong to laugh at. Linked to this is Ronald De Sousa’s account of how humour works. He claims that in order to be amused by something we have to endorse the attitudes of it. To take the previous example, according to him, some of us will find sexist jokes funny whereas others will not, the difference is in whether you support those attitudes. Therefore it would become immoral to be amused by this type of joke since to find it humorous is to be sexist. Main Objective: I intend to make a study into the area of humour, focusing upon looking into ethics surrounding amusement and attempting to find out whether it could ever be morally perverse or wrong to make jokes, or laugh about particular things. Utilitarian Concept: I shall engage with a utilitarian perspective when it comes to discovering whether finding humour in something could ever be morally wrong. Take for example the Dutch cartoon of Mohammed. Clearly this had a lot of negative consequences and upset a lot of people. Quite obviously blasphemous humour can be offensive. However no utilitarian evaluation is complete without looking at all the consequences, and it could be argued that there was some positive outcomes. It got people talking about religious views, and reflection and discussion are beneficial to individuals and society as a whole. A society with more discourse and exchanging of ideas is a happier society than one without. In that sense jokes such as these could be argued to be for the greater good. Change and Contrast: The historical contrast between the role of parody in the Medieval carnival and the limits of parody in modernity. Medieval Carnival: Generalised ethical permission under which parody, that would have amounted to blasphemy on any other occasion, was acceptable, under a particular kind of social occasion. Modern day there are restrictions on parody and what is acceptable or viewed as offensive. Could not conceive permission to create a parody of a war memorial for example.