Charlie Kirk: When Violence and Ideology Collapse Moral Judgment

 

The assassination of Charlie Kirk for his ideas is morally indefensible, yet disturbingly, many have been celebrating it. The same voices often condemn Israel for defending itself while expressing support for Hamas, an organization that deliberately targets civilians and whose foundational charter calls for the elimination of Israel(1). This reveals a selective morality: violence against those whose ideas are opposed is justified, while the protection of many innocent victims is criticized.

Such contradictions are not mere inconsistencies—they erode moral authority. True ethical reasoning requires opposing violence against innocents, whether in political debate, armed conflict, or ideological disputes.

Celebrating Kirk’s assassination while condemning others for defending themselves is a stark example of ideological double standards and dehumanization. Hannah Arendt would see this as a symptom of the erosion of critical judgment and the banalization of evil: when ideology overrides moral reflection, ordinary individuals can endorse atrocities without confronting their human consequences.

This mindset carries broader dangers. Arendt warned that the breakdown of moral universality, the dehumanization of opponents, and the normalization of violence are fertile ground for the collapse of democratic institutions and the rise of totalitarian tendencies. When life and justice are judged by allegiance rather than principle, liberty, accountability, and pluralism crumble, and society risks sliding toward authoritarianism.

The Israeli-Hamas conflict exemplifies these dynamics. Hamas deliberately attacked Israeli civilians, using Palestinian civilians as human shields and signaling that such assaults were only the beginning. The deaths of Palestinian civilians are equally deplorable and should never be minimized, yet context and intent matter: Israel responds to an existential threat, seeking to protect its citizens, whereas Hamas initiates attacks on civilians as a deliberate strategy. Arendt emphasized that moral judgment must weigh intent, responsibility, and consequences. Deliberate attacks on innocents, as carried out by Hamas, are morally unacceptable; defensive action that seeks to neutralize threats while minimizing harm is fundamentally distinct.

Public discourse often mirrors the same selective morality: attacks by Hamas are excused or celebrated, while Israel’s defensive measures are condemned. Arendt would likely see this as a dangerous inversion of ethical judgment, allowing ideology to override universal principles, normalizing violence, and creating fertile conditions for the erosion of democracy and the rise of totalitarian practices.

“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule,” said Arendt, “is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced communist, but the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction no longer holds”.

[1] “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” Intelligence Resource Program

Additionally, Article 7 includes a hadith that has been interpreted to incite violence against Jews:

“The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say: O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.” Avalon Project

 

[1] “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” Intelligence Resource Program

Additionally, Article 7 includes a hadith that has been interpreted to incite violence against Jews:

“The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say: O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.” Avalon Project