The Return Of Louis C.K. For Ethics Dummies

Ick.

Reading the news media and entertainment websites, one would think that Louis C.K.’s return to stand-up comedy after nearly a year in exile or rehab or something raises ethics conundrums that would stump Plato, Kant and Mill. It’s not that hard. The fact that everyone, especially those in the entertainment field, are displaying such confusion and angst just tells us something useful about them. They don’t know how to figure out what’s right and wrong.

In case you have forgotten, cult comedy star  Louis C.K. admitted last November at the peak of the #MeToo rush that he had masturbed in front of  at least five women without their consent. Ick. His cable show and other projects were cancelled, and he disappeared from the public eye. Then, last weekend, he returned to the stage at the Comedy Cellar in New York, performed for about 15 minutes, and received a standing ovation.  This apparently alternately shocked or confused people. I’ll make it simple.

Does the comedian have a right to practice his art after the revelation of his disgusting conduct?

Of course he does. He wasn’t sentenced to prison. He has a right to try to make a living at what he does well. In fact, he has a First Amendment right to tell jokes any where others will listen to him.

OK, he technically has a right. But is it right for him to come back like nothing has happened?

What? The man was publicly shamed and humiliated. He can’t come back as if nothing has happened, because everyone knows that something has happened. Nevertheless, his art does not require the public trust. It does not demand good character, or even the absence of a criminal record. Does a great singer sound worse because he was abusive to women? No. Is there a law that says men who are abusive to women should never be able to work again? No, and there shouldn’t be. I wouldn’t hire C.K. to work in an office, because I see no reason to trust him around others. But he’s not a worker, he’s an artist. He never engaged in inappropriate conduct on stage. He can be trusted as an artist,at least when he’s performing solo.

Comedian Michael Ian Black tweeted regarding Louis C.K.that “Will take heat for this, but people have to be allowed to serve their time and move on with their lives.I don’t know if it’s been long enough, or his career will recover, or if people will have him back, but I’m happy to see him try.” For this he apologized,  saying this position was “ultimately, not defensible.” after he was broiled on social media. Should he have apologized?

No. Black’s a coward and a weenie, and if you won’t stand up for your opinions and will cave to any criticism, then don’t say anything at all. If C.K. literally served time for a crime, the statement would still be correct. All Black was saying is that C.K. may not have an audience any more, but he wishes him good luck finding out. What’s “not defensible? ”

It’s really, really simple. If enough people find the man’s humor entertaining and are willing to pay to laugh at him, then Louis C.K. is doing nothing wrong to permit them that choice. Personally, I wouldn’t cross the street to hear him riff, just as I wouldn’t pay a cup of spit to watch Bill Cosby, or a Woody Allen movie, but that’s my choice, my values, and my taste. I don’t blame C.K., or Woody, or even the Coz for giving people a choice. I have my dark opinions about anyone who can find Bill Cosby funny, knowing the jokes are coming from a rapist, but that how my cognitive dissonance works.

Harvey Weinstein abused women in the workplace, while he and they were supposedly working together. Kevin Spacey abused fellow artists in the workplace, and as talented as he is, he has no right to be permitted back in the workplace until he is deemed worthy of trust. I would question whether C.K. should be permitted on a stage if he had masturbated there (Ick); similarly, I don’t think Michael Richards has any right to be trusted on a comedy stage after the inexplicable outburst of racist epithets at audience members that crashed his career. Louis C.K’s disgusting conduct didn’t involve his art at all. Is he still funny? Can he still make people laugh? Will people who employ him profit? Those are the only questions that matter, and they aren’t ethics questions.

A chef may have been a serial killer and a Nazi, but if he cooks a wonderful meal, I might pay for it, and I might love the meal. There is nothing wrong with me eating it, and nothing wrong with the chef giving me the chance to do so.

This isn’t as hard as all the tortured commentary would have us believe.

 

20 Comments

Filed under Arts & Entertainment, Business & Commercial, Ethics Train Wrecks, Gender and Sex, Humor and Satire, Journalism & Media, Popular Culture, Professions, Rights, U.S. Society, Workplace

20 responses to “The Return Of Louis C.K. For Ethics Dummies

  1. If a chef was a former serial killer, I’d be worried about what’s IN the meals he serves.

  2. JutGory

    Zero interest in Louis C.K. heard of him. Barely knew anything about him.

    But, have small children. Was incredibly annoyed when I learned that MeToo might derail the sequel to The Secret Life of Pets.

    As for Kevin Spacey, House of cards has gotten old. So, whatever ..,

    -Jut

  3. Isaac

    Michael Ian Black is an aging z-list mediocrity whom I had only ever heard of because I was one of about 17 fans of the obscure MTV sketch show “The State” back in high school. He is exactly the kind of person who would benefit from the tiny boost in name-recognition he gains by his EXTREMELY dumb hot takes about politics on Twitter.

    Of course he thinks that every Republican, libertarian, and centrist on Earth is a Nazi…and of course he put in an appearance at John McCain’s funeral. Complete phony.

  4. I think you accidentally labeled Michael Ian Black as a comedian in your article.


  5. similarly, I don’t think Michael Richards has any right to be trusted on a comedy stage after the inexplicable outburst of racist epithets at audience members that crashed his career.

    I don’t know his standup, but Richards was incredibly talented at physical comedy.

    One of Jerry’s “Comedians in Cars getting Coffee” episodes is actually him and Michael Richards and is interesting to hear them discuss the incident. It does seem like he works better in a routine than something like standup where the audience can provide feedback at you.

    • I’ll go further than that. Richards is one of the top 10 physical comedians of the post-silent movie era, maybe even top five. In no particular order, I’d list them as…

      Richards
      Red Skelton
      Danny Kaye
      Lucille Ball
      Dick Van Dyke
      Jerry Lewis
      Jim Carrey
      Lou Costello
      Carol Burnett
      Steve Martin

      John Belushi would make the list, but I’m mad at him for dying so young. Why isn’t there a great black physical comedian on the list?

  6. If the left cannot allow anyone to be ‘rehabilitated,’ they will have a problem keeping any depth in their bench. Even ‘1984’ deals with this necessity for a fascist regime.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.