You may have heard of the recent tragedy that occurred in
France. On Wednesday two masked gunmen stormed
into the Charlie Hebdo offices in france then proceeded to shoot and kill 12 people
and injuring many others. Charlie Hebdo is a French satirical newspaper most
well known for their depictions of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.
The issue I want to look into the ethics involved in drawing
satirical comics about another religion.
Even if islam is quite often misrepresented as a “terrorist” religion
due to a small number of radical islamists. The major issue here is the ethical
implications of satirical cartoons depicting Islam as a terroristic religion. Just
because a small number of muslims belong to radical groups who carry out acts
of terrorism, is it justifiable to mock the entire religion based off of a
select few? Satire is a subgenre of literature that ridicules an individual,
corporations or society. The most common satire is in the form of satirical
comics found in newspaper publications or magazines. Most of the time,
satirical comics are based on corrupt individuals, politicians or the rich. But
Hebdo is known for their racial satire comics depicting The Islamic prophet
Muhammed. The argument on whether this is ethical or not can be argued, this is
also a case of “does the ends justify the means?”. Satirical comics main goal
is to shame an individual by attacking their image. So ethically is shaming an
individual wrong or right? Let alone an entire religious group.
Questions
is it ethical to mock a religion as a whole through the use
of satirical comics?
Does free speech give someone the right to be offensive?
You've set this question up well, but keep going to actually answer/analyze your questions. I think the premise of political cartoons is also debatable. Satire is not simply meant to shame, but also to spur examination and hopefully change of something the satirist thinks is wrong.
ReplyDeleteThis is actually a similar post and question to your photojournalism post.
ReplyDelete