I. Introduction: The Clash Between Moral Objectivity and Cultural Relativism
In a passionate dialogue between Charlie Kirk and a university student, a fundamental moral question takes center stage:
Can we separate morality from the state—and if so, by what standard do we define what is good or evil?
The student defends a collectivist view of morality, suggesting that moral standards emerge from democratic consensus. Charlie Kirk challenges this by invoking historical atrocities, such as slavery and genocide, which were once supported by the majority but are now seen as morally repugnant.
This article dissects the key philosophical and ethical themes behind the debate, revealing the flaws of moral relativism and the necessity of transcendent moral standards.
II. The Argument: Law, Morality, and the Role of Consensus
At the heart of the exchange is this tension:
- The student believes: Morality is what the majority of society agrees on (collective morality).
- Kirk argues: If morality is merely a social construct, then it can justify anything—including mass murder—if enough people agree.
“By what standard do you believe murder is wrong?”
“Because the collective says so.”
“But the collective has often been wrong.”
This is the central flaw of moral relativism: it collapses under historical weight.
III. Historical Refutation of Collective Morality
Kirk points to Nazi Germany and institutional slavery to demonstrate the danger of relying on collective agreement:
- Nazi Germany: A democratically supported regime systematically murdered millions.
- Slavery: Endorsed by societies across the globe for millennia, often with legal sanction.
If we accept that collective morality can be wrong, then we must also admit:
- There is a standard outside the collective by which we judge it.
- That standard must be transcendent—higher than the state, the culture, or the era.
IV. Can Morality Be Separated from the State?
The student attempts to invoke separation of church and state, implying that no specific religious morality should inform law. Kirk concedes this legally, but returns to the real question:
“By what standard do we pass laws like ‘Do not murder’?”
Even if religious belief is not codified, the moral principles embedded in law must come from some source.
There are only three options:
- The individual (subjective morality)
- The collective (cultural consensus)
- The transcendent (objective moral law)
V. The Dangers of Moral Relativism
The student unintentionally exposes the problem:
- He admits that mass murder and slavery are wrong.
- He also admits that the collective has supported both.
- Yet he still appeals to the collective as the source of moral truth.
This creates a contradiction:
If the collective is sometimes wrong, it cannot be the final moral authority.
VI. Why Objective Moral Standards Are Necessary
A truly just law must be:
- Above the majority,
- Unchanging across time, and
- Rooted in moral reality—not cultural mood.
Such standards historically come from:
- Natural Law (as in the Declaration of Independence: “endowed by their Creator…”),
- Religious principles, or
- Philosophical absolutes (e.g., Kant’s categorical imperative).
Without these, law becomes a weapon of power, not justice.
VII. Freedom, Law, and the Human Condition
This debate also touches on the moral foundations of a free society:
- Freedom without a moral compass leads to anarchy or tyranny.
- Laws without higher values lead to legalized evil.
- Conscience must be informed not by mob rule, but by moral clarity.
VIII. Conclusion: What Is the True Standard?
Charlie Kirk’s final challenge to the student is simple, yet profound:
“Maybe we shouldn’t appeal to the collective, because the collective has given us really evil things. Instead, we should appeal to something higher than us.”
The question is not whether morality can be separated from the state—but whether any morality worth having can survive without a standard higher than man.
If society wishes to be just, it must be humble enough to admit:
We are not the measure of what is right.
