Charlie Kirk was murdered because someone felt his “hateful” speech should be silenced.
Iryna Zarutska was murdered because someone felt “that white girl” should die.
Angela Michelle Carr, Jerrald Gallion, and Anolt Joseph Laguerre Jr. were murdered because someone felt that black people should die.
Hundreds of victims of school shootings—from those at Columbine High to Sandy Hook Elementary to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High—were murdered because someone felt that killing them would be good.
The victims of 9/11, 7/7, and 10/7 were murdered because Muslims have faith that God exists, that his will is the moral law, and that he wants them to kill infidels. Likewise, homosexuals are hanged or beheaded in the Islamic world because Muslims have faith that God wants gay people dead.
Giordano Bruno, Michael Servetus, Hypatia, and other freethinkers were murdered because Christians had faith that God exists, that his will is the moral law, and that he wants them to kill heretics. Similarly, homosexuals throughout the ages have been killed by Christians who had faith that God wants gay people dead.
Countless millions of men, women, and children were murdered by communists who communally agreed that the proletariat (“working class”) should do whatever it takes to eliminate the bourgeoisie (“business-owning class”). Likewise, six million Jews were killed by Nazis because they formed a consensus that this was the right thing to do.
What underpins all this carnage? What is the causal common denominator?
The fundamental action underlying and giving rise to all such murderous behavior is the choice to treat something other than reason as a means of knowledge—and thus something other than reason as a guide to action.
The murderers of Kirk, Zarutska, Carr, Gallion, and Laguerre felt that they should kill these people—and acted accordingly. They treated feelings as a means of knowledge.
The jihadists of 9/11, 7/7, and 10/7, the Muslims and Christians who’ve killed gay people, and the Christians who murdered Bruno, Servetus, and Hypatia had faith that they should kill these people—and acted accordingly. They treated faith as a means of knowledge.
The communists and Nazis who slaughtered millions did so because they communally agreed that they should. They treated consensus as a means of knowledge.
None of these killers offered facts or evidence in support of the idea that they should kill the people they killed; nor could they have, as there are no facts to support the propriety of murder. None genuinely knew that they should kill their victims; you can’t know what isn’t so. They merely felt, had faith, or agreed that they should—and then treated that non-means of knowledge as a means of knowledge.
Those who accept absurdities commit or condone atrocities.
Man’s only means of knowledge is reason—the faculty that identifies and integrates the evidence of his senses. Reasoning involves perceptual observation, conceptual integration, and the formation and use of principles: general truths about the nature of reality, human nature, and the requirements of human life and social harmony.
Key among these principles is that of individual rights: the recognition of the fact that each individual’s life belongs to him (not to a group, a god, or a guy with a gun)—that he is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others—and that in order for human beings to live together peacefully (rather than as warring animals), they must renounce the initiation of physical force, leaving each individual free to act in accordance with his own rational judgment. (Force, under this principle, may be used only in retaliation against those who initiate its use.)
The principle of individual rights is not a gift from “God” or the government, nor is it a matter of mere preference or opinion. Rather, it is a truth that anyone can grasp—if he observes reality, uses reason, and refuses to pretend that feelings, faith, or consensus are means of knowledge.
Although there is no evidence to support the notion that murdering people or initiating force against them is good, a world of evidence supports the idea that in order to survive and thrive as human beings, we must use reason, produce life-serving goods and services, trade value for value by mutual consent to mutual benefit, and refrain from initiating force against one another—so that everyone can live his life as he sees fit.
In light of such observations and truths, we can draw a vital conclusion. We can achieve a civilized society only to the extent that we recognize and uphold two fundamental principles:
Reason is man’s only means of knowledge, his proper guide to action, and his basic means of living.
Initiating physical force against human beings is factually immoral and properly illegal—because to the extent that force is used against a person, it stops him from acting in accordance with his basic means of living: the judgment of his reasoning mind.
The measure of a society’s civility is precisely the extent to which its citizens and government recognize and uphold these principles.
Imagine a society that did so fully.
Let’s build it.
This article appears in the Winter 2025 issue of The Objective Standard.
Quite a succinct summation of why faith must always end up in the use of force, and why murder is wrong regardless of what ideology prompted it. Well said!