How Morality Has Been Weaponized to Justify Society’s Worst Atrocities
Today, you have seen how a man of peace and dialogue can be gunned down for his opinions. You saw how people can come together, pray and vocalize their angst in a civil and obedient manner and how fellow citizens can immediately defend such a killing despite its violation of our collective humanity.
A champion of free speech executed to silence.
Moments after Charlie Kirk was shot you saw media outlets justify the shooting. You saw it the past week too when footage surfaced of Iryna Zarutska being fatally stabbed by a serial criminal on a public train.
You hear the expression “You don’t hate the media enough” but can you really explain it?
How can you watch a person act with such baseless malevolence and still find a morally virtuous argument to defend him?
This issue has plagued me for a long time, but today it bothered me more than ever before.
There seems to be a section of our country that finds it acceptable to deviate from the legal definitions and standards if the provocateur can provide an appealing enough story. New social frameworks have been created clarifying what’s acceptable instead of prosecuting societies worst actors.
If I tell you that Luigi Mangione suffered terribly due to Brian Thompsons refusal to pay insurance payouts, you would rightfully understand Luigi’s disdain towards Brian. You may even think Brian responsible to indemnify Luigi for the hurt he caused him. Luigi understood this and used it as motive to kill Brian. Instead of going to the law or appealing to the authorities, Luigi decided on a new standard of justice where Brian was deserving of the death penalty, and he had the right to his execution.
A society that listens to this story and determines Luigi was within his rights to kill Brian has a morally contorted view of the world. That’s my opinion but it’s also the law.
If all that is required to justify such action is to paint the ‘other’ as an aggressor, are we not handing the axe to the best storyteller?
If we discard the rule of law and pursue images as the basis of our objectivism are we not discounting the value of morality?
What is the point of a judiciary if a person’s fate may ultimately be decided by how palatable their story is?
This is what scares me.
More and more people are being swayed by narrative over reason. A whole generation of young people are being educated by click-bait articles and Tik-Toks that provide ready made opinions and disables their ability to think critically.
You see it every day and the worst is yet to come.
What stands out to me is how those who seek to instigate or cause harm to us always begin their narrative with a message that is palatable to our moral compass.
You see it with the Free Palestine/Hamas movement and you see it with cashless bail. You see it with rent control housing advocates and you saw it with BLM.
It’s a sentiment of “I can do whatever I want with you because I have created a platform that appeals to some of your morals and for you to deny me this is to deny your belief in your own morals”.
Hamas paints themselves as victims of displacement and apartheid, therefore, because you don’t like those things you should support their struggle against those causing this injustice. If you are defending them against this injustice you then also have to defend them killing and raping people which, like Luigi Magione, becomes more palatable given the dramatic story they have presented.
Protesters will burn down your business, block the highway, disrupt your day to day life and violate your freedoms but if their cause is presented as noble you have no right to condemn them.
When will the time come when we look at those doing wrong and call it out for what it is?
Does the country have to self-destruct to return to the principles on which it was founded?
The times feel turbulent and though there is fear there is also hope. I saw a tweet that read, “the man who killed Charlie Kirk just created a million Charlie Kirks”. While I like the idea, I don’t believe it to be true.
Charlie Kirk isn’t an idea or a movement. He was a man with good morals and a respect for truth. To create a million Charlies you need to provide truth and education to those who seek it. You need to stand up to those who try to force their ideals on you and protect the foundational principles on which this country was established.
Most of all, to be a Charlie you need to respect that there is someone above us. Someone we answer to no matter how eloquently or convincingly we present our case.
“G-d is our Master, G-d is One” – Deuteronomy 6:4
Rest in Peace Charlie, you will be missed.