NONFICTION: ETHICAL HUMOR
“Be Good: How to Navigate the Ethics of Everything” By Randy Cohen
Randy Cohen, humorist, author, playwright, radio show host, TV comedy writer and the original “Ethicist” for the New York Times, may not be the last word on ethical behavior. But he certainly is the most entertaining.
Some of the best or most controversial Q&As from his 12 years of writing the feature are collected in a new book that reflects his sharp intellect and quick wit, with hints as to his personal allegiances.
“Be Good: How to Navigate the Ethics of Everything” (Chronicle Books) is more than a rehash. Introducing each thematic chapter, Cohen mulls the cultural shifts the column witnessed with regard to marriage, family, work, sex, religion, technology, money and more.
The sociology of the endeavor remains key, making the Q&As relevant years later.
Why take his word? Who set him up to be the judge?
“I was a music major in college, in grad school I studied composition, so the question becomes, why me? It used to make me self-conscious,” he said by phone from New York. “It’s a fair question. The title of the column, which was the paper’s choice, was so highfalutin. I found it slightly misleading at first.” Eventually he contented himself with the knowledge that, “reading it was optional and they could ignore it.”
In his view, “ethics ought not to be a topic for specialists. I was meant to be a stand-in for the reader.”
Cohen’s humor (he is a three-time ) makes his replies fun as well as informative.
“The biggest kind of question by far is about duty to report, when you are aware of the wrongdoing of others.” A spouse having an affair, a friend cheating on taxes. It’s often a tough call. “We don’t want to live in a surveillance state. How to weigh the two sides?”
The biggest change in topics, he said, concerns questions that derive from new technology. “Privacy implications, intellectual property, illegal downloading of music, online plagiarism, all kinds of new territory.” Indeed, the chapter treating cellphones cleverly straddles the line between etiquette and ethics, morals and manners.
Cohen who was succeeded as the Ethicist by Chuck Klosterman, previously wrote a collection of his responses to readers. He has also writen “Diary of a Flying Man,” a collection of short stories, and “Modest Proposals,” a collection of letters.
“It took me awhile to learn that readers will accept — even enjoy — real disagreement as long as I am courteous and respectful,” he writes.
His sly, opinionated asides won’t suit every taste (fans of handguns or Hooters may be offended), but his clever style is engaging.
Apology warranted?
Cohen agreed to answer an e-mailed question from The Denver Post:
Q: Recently during taping of “The Comedy Central Roast of Roseanne,” the comedian Jeffrey Ross made a joke about the Aurora, Colo., mass shootings. He acknowledged afterward that he “crossed a line,” but declared the “Roast” is a place for unapologetic comedy, and besides, it’s a matter of free speech, etc. Should he have apologized? Is anything off limits?
A: To whom would Ross apologize? Presumably no friends or relatives of the victims of that atrocity attended the show. And the audience knew what it was getting into.
If he’d like to apologize to me personally, he should note that it is not the joke itself but his feeble defense of the joke that rankles. His slapdash moral reasoning would accommodate all manner of unethical conduct. The pillar of his self-justification: “I think if it’s done thoughtfully it’s appropriate. If it’s done carelessly, it’s inappropriate.” Thus the 1939 invasion of Poland was OK: the Germans put real thought into it.
His other justification: The live show was recorded for later airing, and “I didn’t intend for that joke to be part of the broadcast.” And indeed, Comedy Central cut it. By this standard, however, you may mug a guy on the street as long as you don’t put it on TV.
Most nonsensical was Ross’ declaration that the celebrity roast is “one of the last bastions of free speech.” (Just the way Jefferson imagined.) The right to speak is not the right to speak without criticism.
You may respond to any part of life with humor, but it does not follow that every attempt succeeds, at least as an ethical matter. There are honorable ideas (i.e. jokes) and discreditable ideas. For instance, there are jokes that attack racism, and there are racist jokes.
That Ross is a muttonhead needn’t discourage his more talented colleagues from commenting on sensitive subjects. George Bernard Shaw put it this way: “Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.” (Albeit not at Jeffrey Ross’s act.)
Joanne Ostrow: 303-954-1830, jostrow@denverpost.com or twitter.com/ostrowdp
