2,387 videos 1,376,944,188 views US Joined Aug 30, 2018
Charlie Kirk is the Founder and President of Turning Point USA, the largest and fastest growing conservative youth activist organization in the country with over 250,000 student members, over 150 full-time staff, and a presence on over 2,000 high school and college campuses nationwide. Charlie is also the Chairman of Students for Trump, which aims to activate one million new college voters on campuses in battleground states in the lead up to the 2020 presidential election. His social media reaches over 100 million people per month and according to Axios, he is one of the "top 10 most engaged" Twitter handles in the world. He is also the host of “The Charlie Kirk Show,” which regularly ranks among the top news shows on Apple podcast charts.
Charlie Kirk Debates Atheist Student on Objective Morality and the Holocaust Question at Campus Event
Charlie Kirk engages in a philosophical debate with an atheist college student who argues that objective morality doesn't exist. The conversation escalates when Kirk presses the student on whether the Holocaust was objectively wrong. The student maintains intellectual consistency by admitting he cannot make objective moral claims, even about the Nazi genocide of Jews. Kirk counters by arguing that without transcendent moral standards rooted in God, societies become vulnerable to mass atrocities. The exchange highlights the stark difference between Christian and atheist worldviews on the nature of right and wrong, with the student acknowledging he must accept uncomfortable implications of his philosophical position.
A college student approached Charlie Kirk with a question about objective morality, challenging the need for an absolute moral standard. The student argued that people make moral judgments every day without referencing religious texts, using the simple example of saying "I had a good day" as evidence that moral statements don't require divine authority.
Kirk immediately distinguished between descriptive statements about personal experience and prescriptive moral claims. He clarified that describing a day as "good" in terms of personal experience differs fundamentally from making a moral judgment about whether something is objectively right or wrong.
The Two Books Scenario
The student then posed a hypothetical situation: if someone with no religious background read both the Quran and the Bible and developed a preference for one over the other, wouldn't that suggest morality is subjective rather than objective? The student argued that deriving moral intuitions from reading different moral codes demonstrates that morality comes from personal preference rather than objective truth.
Kirk responded by cutting through the hypothetical with a practical question: which book corresponds with reality? He challenged the student to consider which moral system, when applied in the natural world, actually produces flourishing people and societies. Kirk pointed out that even non-believers would agree that eight out of the Ten Commandments provide excellent rules for living.
The student clarified that his question wasn't about whether Christianity is good or bad, but rather about the philosophical problem of deriving "ought" statements from "is" statements—the classic is-ought problem in philosophy. He questioned how anyone can derive claims about what we should do from only statements about the nature of being.
The Nature of Humanity
Kirk shifted the conversation to ask whether the student believed people are naturally good or not. The student declined to make a definitive statement about human nature. Kirk then laid out his Christian perspective: humans are inherently broken, sinful, and fall short of God's glory, requiring moral teaching to become good. He contrasted this with certain secular worldviews that assume humans are naturally good and that social problems stem from external systems like capitalism or patriarchy.
The Murder Question
Kirk asked the student directly if he believed murder is wrong. The student said yes, explaining that murder is by definition the wrongful killing of someone. Kirk then presented a real-world example: in some African villages, missionaries report that people routinely leave unwanted newborn babies by the fire to die. No one in those communities feels bad about it; it's simply part of their custom. Kirk asked if those people are wrong.
The student admitted that according to his personal view, they are wrong, but he wouldn't claim they are objectively wrong because he doesn't believe in objective morality. Kirk pressed the point: is it objectively wrong to abandon a newborn baby? The student maintained his position—he cannot say it's objectively wrong because he doesn't believe objective moral truth exists.
The Holocaust Test
Kirk then escalated to the most extreme moral test: the Holocaust. He asked if the Nazis who gassed thousands of Jews were objectively wrong. The Nazis believed what they were doing was good—does that make their actions merely a matter of opinion?
The student remained philosophically consistent. He stated that he cannot derive a truth value from moral claims, therefore he cannot say the Holocaust was objectively wrong. Kirk asked for absolute clarity: were the Nazis objectively evil? The student repeated that you cannot derive objective moral statements, though he personally believes the Holocaust was wrong.
Kirk emphasized the implications: what the student was saying is that the Holocaust is just a matter of opinion. The student acknowledged this is indeed the consequence of atheistic philosophy—you have to accept difficult implications. He clarified for anyone listening that he personally thinks the Holocaust was wrong, but he cannot claim it's objectively wrong.
Transcendent Morality vs. Personal Opinion
Kirk stated his position clearly: he believes the Holocaust was objectively wrong regardless of anyone's opinion because moral truth transcends human preference. There exists a transcendent way of living, which he identifies with the Bible—what he considers the perfect catalog from creation to the end of the world describing how humans should live.
The Christian worldview, Kirk explained, holds that certain moral truths exist independent of human opinion or cultural context. Murder is wrong not because we feel it's wrong, but because it violates an objective moral law established by the Creator.
The Societal Implications
Kirk asked the student if he could see how his worldview might result in mass death and societal chaos. If a country adopted the view that nothing is objectively wrong—that even gassing Jews cannot be deemed transcendently evil above anyone's opinion—what would prevent such atrocities from occurring without anyone questioning them?
The student responded that he wasn't making prescriptive claims about how people should behave or arguing against Christianity. He was simply making descriptive claims about how morality actually works in the world. Within his worldview, people can agree that things like murder and stealing are wrong based on shared moral intuitions and the fact that seeing others hurt makes us feel bad.
Kirk countered with a historical fact: the SS guards didn't feel bad when they killed Jews. The student acknowledged this reality. Kirk pressed further—doesn't the student see where this philosophy might unravel into mass murder and chaos?
Describing Reality vs. Prescribing Behavior
The student maintained that he was describing how people derive their morals in reality, not prescribing how they should. He argued that moral preferences don't establish objective truth. Even if someone reads two books with different moral codes and prefers one, that preference has nothing to do with which one corresponds with reality.
Kirk suggested that perhaps the true moral code is the one that says not to gas Jews, not to murder, and that life is good because there's a Creator who loves humanity. The student responded that Kirk was simply making claims about what he believes would be ideal—obviously it would be convenient if everyone had to follow the same moral code.
Kirk quipped, "If only a book existed," implying the Bible provides exactly such a code. But the student held firm to his philosophical position.
The Atheist Nazi Question Answered
Kirk noted that the student was the first person ever to answer what he called "the atheist Nazi question" with complete clarity and consistency. Most atheists, when pressed on whether they can objectively condemn the Holocaust, equivocate or try to find middle ground. This student simply acknowledged the logical conclusion of his worldview: an atheist cannot objectively say the Holocaust was wrong.
The student confirmed he was arguing against the entire concept of objective morality. He wasn't going to avoid the uncomfortable implications of his philosophical position. Kirk appreciated the intellectual honesty—they had clarity, even without agreement.
The exchange ended with mutual respect for each other's consistency, though they remained on opposite sides of one of philosophy's most fundamental questions: does objective moral truth exist, or is all morality ultimately subjective?
