Explore the vast range of titles available.

This hilarious cast of star philosophers will make you laugh while you think as they explore the moral conundrums, ridiculous paradoxes, and wild implications of Saturday Night Live  Comedian-philosophers from Socrates to Sartre have always prodded and provoked us, critiquing our most sacred institutions and urging us to examine ourselves in the process. In Saturday Night Live and Philosophy, a star-studded cast of philosophers takes a close look at the \"deep thoughts\" beneath the surface of NBC's award-winning late-night variety show and its hosts' zany antics. In this book, philosophy and comedy join forces, just like the Ambiguously Gay Duo, to explore the meaning of life itself through the riffs and beats of the subversive parody that gives the show its razor-sharp wit and undeniable cultural and political significance. Our guest hosts raise some eyebrows with questions like: Is Weekend Update Fake News? Does SNL upset dominant paradigms or trap us in political bubbles? When it comes to SNL, how can we tell the difference between satire, smart-assery, and seriousness? Is the Ladies Man too stupid for moral responsibility? What is the benefit of jokes that cause outrage? The Church Lady has a bad case of moral superiority. How about you? What can Wayne and Garth teach us about living a happy life?

Due to COVID-19’s strain on health systems across the globe, triage protocols determine how to allocate scarce medical resources with the worthy goal of maximising the number of lives saved. However, due to racial biases and long-standing health inequities, the common method of ranking patients based on impersonal numeric representations of their morbidity is associated with disproportionately pronounced racial disparities. In response, policymakers have issued statements of solidarity. However, translating support into responsive COVID-19 policy is rife with complexity. Triage does not easily lend itself to race-based exceptions. Reordering triage queues based on an individual patient’s racial affiliation has been considered but may be divisive and difficult to implement. And while COVID-19 hospital policies may be presented as rigidly focused on saving the most lives, many make exceptions for those deemed worthy by policymakers such as front-line healthcare workers, older physicians, pregnant women and patients with disabilities. These exceptions demonstrate creativity and ingenuity—hallmarks of policymakers’ abilities to flexibly respond to urgent societal concerns—which should also be extended to patients of colour. This paper dismantles common arguments against the confrontation of racial inequity within COVID-19 triage protocols, highlights concerns related to existing proposals and proposes a new paradigm to increase equity when allocating scarce COVID-19 resources.

In this paper, I consider Michael Bratman’s account of self-governed agency as a lens through which to understand and respond better to patient noncompliance. I argue that, to the extent we ought to understand patients as ordinary people in their capacity to evaluate, choose, and act, we ought to accept that noncompliance could be a rational decision deserving of respect. Understanding noncompliance as rational can benefit the doctor-patient relationship in that the two can work toward mutually agreed upon goals—even when those goals prioritize nonhealth-related values. I argue that this promises benefits both to patient health and medical efficiency.

Based on Robert Baker's metaphorical view of damaging language, I argue that morally responsible individuals are obligated to refrain from using the word ‘gay’ as a negative adjective directed towards that which the speaker dislikes. According to the metaphorical view, while a speaker may understand her use of the word ‘gay’ as devoid of homosexual connotations, the hearer – particularly a young person still coming to understand his own sexuality – is likely to conclude that his ‘gayness’ puts him in the same hated category as all of those other objects, events, and persons who are negatively called ‘gay’.

Based on Robert Baker's metaphorical view of damaging language, I argue that morally responsible individuals are obligated to refrain from using the word ‘gay’ as a negative adjective directed towards that which the speaker dislikes. According to the metaphorical view, while a speaker may understand her use of the word ‘gay’ as devoid of homosexual connotations, the hearer – particularly a young person still coming to understand his own sexuality – is likely to conclude that his ‘gayness’ puts him in the same hated category as all of those other objects, events, and persons who are negatively called ‘gay’.

Many claim that belief in God is like belief in Santa Claus – it's an irrational belief that people justify with irrational arguments because they cherish it and because it comforts them. In this dialogue, true believers ‘have it out’ regarding whether either of their beliefs – belief in God, or belief in Santa – is rational, and a direct parallel between the reasoning of the two sides is demonstrated. Many important arguments regarding theistic belief are discussed in some form. The article is intended for use in an introduction to philosophy, or an introductory philosophy of religion course, as a humorous way to foster discussion and expose students to criticisms of theistic arguments, and to consider the possibility that theistic belief is no better than belief in the existence of Santa Claus. Act One.

In Act I, Faith and Klaus had it out regarding whether their deity of choice – God and Santa respectively – exists. Although Klaus was unable to convince Faith, Klaus suggested that Krampus, his ‘Santa pastor’ (the guy who owns the mall where he buys his Christmas presents), will set Faith straight. We join the dialogue, once again, as Faith is about to first meet Krampus, who promises to provide us with more sophisticated arguments in favor of Santa Claus.

The flip side of radical autonomism is known as radical moralism. Splitting the difference between radical autonomism and radical moralism is the view known as moderate moralism, endorsed by contemporary aesthetician Noël Carrol. Radical moralism traces its roots back to Plato, who was all too aware of art's power to sway the hearts of its audience. The joke slightly depowers the powerful person, by transferring that power to the audience who laughs. John Belushi's Samurai Futaba sketches are more cringy than funny to modern sensibilities, because the butt of the joke is Belushi's fictitious Futaba – a stand‐in for a stereotypical 1970s American understanding of a Japanese person. The butt of an impressionist's joke is usually, pretty straightforwardly, whoever they are doing an impression of. So, the butt of a typical Chase‐as‐Ford pratfall is Gerald Ford, and the butt of Carvey's famous “read my lips” antics is George H.W. Bush.

In this dissertation, I argue for a convergence account of the ontological status of the fields of ethics and aesthetics. This project is accomplished in three parts. In Part I, I defeat six leading arguments in favor of divergence on the basis of principles, properties, obligations, motivation, seriousness, and dilemmas. Defeating each of these divergence arguments offers support for my convergence position. Part II focuses on moral and aesthetic judgments. I argue that, in both fields, evaluative judgments are formed through a combination of convention, emotion, reason, and a tendency to prefer utility. I offer a two-tiered account of judgment, whereby objective judgments can be reached through an appeal to convention, and subjective judgments allow us to critique the conventions themselves. As good reason has been given to reject divergence, Part III of the dissertation is focused on determining whether to accept realist or antirealist convergence. Following a discussion regarding who bears the burden of proof in the realist/antirealist debate, an analysis of the implications of accepting divergence is offered, which demonstrates that moral and aesthetic evaluation and discourse is possible under an antirealist view, and a motivation to engage in these activities is not lost.

During a controversial Weekend Update, David Spade made the following joke with an image of Eddie Murphy behind him: \"Look, children, it's a falling star – make a wish.\" The crack came at a time when Murphy's career was hurting, and he took offense, refusing to return to the show for twenty years. Like most areas of philosophy, there are a plurality of views when it comes to familial ethics. In this chapter, the author takes this opportunity to consider some of them, and to figure out what each view would say about the Spade‐Murphy family feud. Good news for the Rileys and the Combs, the two families from Dysfunctional Family Feud who can't get through a sentence without being nasty to each other, there is a view of familial ethics that might excuse their behavior. It is known as the No Special Obligations View.