This essay shall seek to find answers to why acts of violence can be entertaining. It therefore accepts the implicit assumption that violence can be entertaining even though it would certainly be possible to circumvent the entire question semantically by defining violence normatively as acts that are by definition unenjoyable1. However, because this would be to merely avoid the question, the moral tension is kept alive by defining violence as “actions or words which are intended to hurt people”2 and entertainment as “an enjoyable activity which has no purpose other than itself”3. If ‘to hurt’ is the same as ‘causing pain’, the question therefore becomes: “Why can humans enjoy the deliberate infliction of pain for itself?”
Notes:
- Irwin Goldstein makes this point in ‘Pleasure and Pain: Unconditional, Intrinsic Values’. In: Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 1, No. 2, Dec 1989, pp. 255-276. ↩
- Gillard, P. et al. (eds.) Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003. Entry ‘violence’, p. 1420. ↩
- Author’s own definition, 2011. ↩


