The act of celebrating or cheering for someone’s death, such as the hypothetical case of Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, raises profound ethical, philosophical, and psychological questions.
This phenomenon is not merely a reaction to an individual’s passing but a reflection of deeper societal, moral, and psychological currents. When people express joy or satisfaction at someone’s death—particularly in public forums like workplaces or university campuses—it creates a complex dilemma. This issue intersects with free speech, moral philosophy, psychological disorders, religious teachings (specifically from the Bible and Catholic doctrine), and the tension between individual expression and societal harmony. Below, I explore the ethical and philosophical dimensions of this behavior, the psychological underpinnings, the religious perspectives, the free speech paradox, and potential paths toward balance, while addressing the hypocrisy of those who champion free speech yet demand punishment for such expressions.
Ethical and Philosophical Perspectives
Philosophically, celebrating someone’s death challenges foundational ethical principles. From a deontological perspective, rooted in Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative, actions should be judged by their adherence to universal moral laws. Kant argued that we must treat others as ends in themselves, not as means to an end. Celebrating someone’s death, particularly a public figure like Charlie Kirk, reduces their humanity to a symbol of ideological opposition, violating their intrinsic dignity. This act fails Kant’s test of universalizability: if everyone celebrated the deaths of their adversaries, it would erode mutual respect and foster a culture of vengeance.
In contrast, consequentialist ethics, such as utilitarianism proposed by John Stuart Mill, evaluates actions based on their outcomes. Celebrating a death might bring temporary satisfaction to a group but risks long-term harm by deepening societal divisions and normalizing dehumanization. Mill’s harm principle suggests that free expression is permissible unless it causes significant harm to others. While cheering for a death may not directly harm the deceased, it can create a hostile environment, particularly in workplaces or campuses, where such expressions may alienate or intimidate others.
Virtue ethics, drawing from Aristotle, emphasizes character and the cultivation of virtues like compassion and justice. Celebrating death reflects a failure to embody virtues such as empathy or magnanimity, instead fostering vices like spite or cruelty. For Aristotle, living a virtuous life requires striving for the “golden mean” between extremes—here, balancing honest critique of someone’s actions with respect for their humanity, even in death.
Psychological Underpinnings
Psychologically, celebrating someone’s death often stems from intense ideological polarization or personal animosity. This behavior can be linked to schadenfreude, the pleasure derived from another’s misfortune. While schadenfreude is a common human emotion, its extreme manifestation in celebrating death may indicate deeper issues. For instance, individuals with narcissistic or antisocial personality disorders may exhibit heightened tendencies to dehumanize opponents, viewing their demise as a victory. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) notes that antisocial personality disorder involves a lack of empathy and disregard for others’ rights, which could manifest in callous celebrations of death.
Group dynamics also play a role. Social identity theory, developed by Henri Tajfel, suggests that individuals derive self-esteem from their group affiliations, often leading to in-group favoritism and out-group hostility. When a figure like Charlie Kirk, who is polarizing due to his conservative activism, dies, members of opposing groups may celebrate as a way to affirm their group’s moral superiority. This is amplified in echo chambers, such as online platforms or ideologically homogeneous campuses, where groupthink reinforces extreme reactions.
Biblical and Catholic Teachings
The Bible and Catholic teachings provide clear guidance on the sanctity of human life and the moral response to death. In the Old Testament, Ezekiel 33:11 states, “As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.” This verse underscores God’s desire for redemption over destruction, suggesting that celebrating death is contrary to divine will. Similarly, Proverbs 24:17-18 warns, “Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles, lest the Lord see it and be displeased.”
Catholic teaching reinforces this. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2302) emphasizes the importance of cultivating peace and avoiding hatred, even toward those who hold opposing views. The Fifth Commandment, “You shall not kill,” extends beyond physical acts to include the “murder of the heart” through hatred or contempt (CCC 2262). Celebrating someone’s death, particularly in a public setting, violates this principle by fostering division and dehumanization. The Church also calls for forgiveness and charity, urging believers to pray for the souls of the departed, even those considered enemies.
The Free Speech Dilemma
The act of celebrating death, while morally troubling, falls under the umbrella of free speech in many democratic societies, particularly in the United States under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has consistently protected controversial speech, as seen in cases like Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), which allows speech unless it incites imminent lawless action, and Texas v. Johnson (1989), which upheld flag burning as expressive conduct. Publicly cheering for someone’s death, while distasteful, is unlikely to meet the legal threshold for unprotected speech unless it incites violence or constitutes a direct threat.
However, the workplace and campus settings complicate this. Employees or students celebrating a death—say, of a figure like Charlie Kirk—may create a hostile environment, particularly if their expressions target colleagues or peers who share the deceased’s views. For example, a faculty member tweeting, “Good riddance to Charlie Kirk,” could alienate conservative students, undermining the inclusive environment universities strive to maintain. Similarly, employees openly celebrating in a workplace risk violating codes of conduct that prioritize professionalism and respect.
The paradox arises when conservatives, who often champion free speech, call for firings or expulsions over such expressions. This hypocrisy is evident when figures like Kirk himself defend controversial speech (e.g., his advocacy for free expression on campuses) but their supporters demand punishment for speech they find offensive. This selective application of free speech principles undermines the very liberty they claim to uphold. It also highlights a broader societal tension: how to balance free expression with the need for civility in shared spaces.
The Workplace and Campus Context
In workplaces and universities, the celebration of death poses unique challenges. Employees are often bound by codes of conduct that prohibit behavior creating a hostile work environment, as outlined in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If an employee’s celebration of a public figure’s death is perceived as targeting coworkers with similar beliefs, it could lead to disciplinary action. For example, a company might argue that such behavior disrupts team cohesion or violates diversity and inclusion policies.
On campuses, the issue is even more fraught. Universities are marketplaces of ideas, where free speech is paramount, yet they also have a duty to foster inclusive learning environments. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) emphasizes academic freedom, but this is balanced against the need to prevent harassment. If students or faculty celebrate a death in a way that alienates others, it could chill open discourse, contradicting the university’s mission. Yet expelling students or firing faculty for such speech risks overreach, particularly if the expression occurs outside the classroom or workplace.
Finding Balance
Balancing free speech with ethical and social considerations requires a nuanced approach. Here are some principles to guide this balance:
1. Promote Virtue Over Vengeance: Drawing from Aristotle’s virtue ethics, individuals and institutions should cultivate compassion and empathy, even toward ideological opponents. Public discourse should emphasize critique of ideas rather than dehumanization of people.
2. Context Matters: Free speech is not absolute in private settings like workplaces or campuses. Institutions should establish clear policies distinguishing between protected speech and behavior that disrupts their mission. For example, a university might allow controversial speech in public forums but discipline students for targeted harassment in classrooms.
3. Encourage Dialogue, Not Punishment: Instead of firing employees or expelling students, institutions should use these moments as opportunities for dialogue. Facilitating discussions about why celebrating death is harmful can foster understanding without resorting to censorship.
4. Model Consistency: Conservatives and others who champion free speech must apply their principles consistently. Calling for punishment of offensive speech while defending one’s own undermines credibility and fuels accusations of hypocrisy.
5. Religious and Ethical Reflection: Religious communities can play a role by emphasizing teachings like those in the Bible and Catholic doctrine, which call for forgiveness and respect for human dignity. Secular society can draw on similar ethical frameworks to promote civility.
6. Psychological Awareness: Recognizing the psychological roots of celebrating death—such as schadenfreude or groupthink—can help individuals and groups reflect on their motives. Education about these dynamics can reduce knee-jerk reactions.
Ultimately, the goal is to create a society where free speech is preserved, but individuals are encouraged to exercise it with moral responsibility. This requires both personal reflection and institutional clarity about the boundaries of acceptable behavior.
Conclusion
Celebrating the death of someone like Charlie Kirk or any individual is a morally complex act that raises questions about human dignity, free speech, and societal harmony. Philosophically, it violates principles of respect and virtue; psychologically, it reflects deeper issues like schadenfreude or group polarization; and religiously, it contradicts biblical and Catholic teachings on love and forgiveness. The free speech dilemma, particularly in workplaces and campuses, highlights the tension between individual rights and collective well-being. Conservatives who demand punishment for such expressions while defending free speech expose their own contradictions. Finding balance requires fostering dialogue, promoting ethical reflection, and establishing clear institutional boundaries. By grounding our responses in philosophy, psychology, and religious wisdom, we can navigate this fraught terrain with greater compassion and clarity.
Sources
1. Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. 1785.
2. Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. 1859.
3. Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by W.D. Ross, 1925.
4. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). 2013.
5. Tajfel, Henri. Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. 1982.
6. Holy Bible, New International Version. Ezekiel 33:11, Proverbs 24:17-18.
7. Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2nd Edition, 1997.
8. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
9. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989).
10. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
11. American Association of University Professors. Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure. 1940.
