2,422 videos 1,389,747,653 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 Evolutionary Psychologist on Monogamy, Moral Absolutism, and Why Feminism Failed Women
Charlie Kirk faces off against an evolutionary psychologist in a thought-provoking debate about traditional monogamy, attachment theory, and moral standards. The questioner challenges Kirk's stance on marriage using arguments from behavioral evolution, genetics, and free market principles, asking why prosperous societies move away from traditional structures. Kirk responds by defending moral absolutism, pointing to the decline of Christianity and the rise of modern feminism as root causes of social decay. The exchange explores whether marriage standards should accommodate individual differences or maintain absolute principles, culminating in Kirk's assertion that challenging feminism and encouraging traditional family structures would solve many societal problems.
The questioner opened with humor and humility, acknowledging his nervousness about potentially becoming the subject of a viral "Charlie Kirk destroys" video. Despite the tension, he posed a sophisticated multi-part question that would become one of the most substantive exchanges of the evening.
He began by agreeing with Kirk on a foundational premise: stable monogamous relationships often produce the best outcomes for society. However, he challenged Kirk to explain a paradox—if traditional monogamy truly works for everyone, why do societies consistently abandon it once they become safer and more prosperous? And why do so many marriages end in divorce, even among couples genuinely trying to make their relationships work?
The Free Market Analogy
The questioner then drew a provocative parallel to Kirk's economic philosophy. If Kirk believes in free markets because they are decentralized systems that adapt to reality without top-down control, and given that individual ability to form healthy long-term pair bonds varies significantly due to genetics and attachment styles, why does Kirk reject top-down control in economics but support it when it comes to human behavior and marriage?
Kirk's Response: The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Kirk began his answer by invoking the second law of thermodynamics—the law of decay. He argued that societies tend to decay against the very roots that created them. To illustrate this principle, he turned to his British audience with a pointed observation: the United Kingdom invented the idea of free speech and brought it to the world, yet no longer has genuine free speech.
Kirk cited statistics claiming that 30 people per day are arrested in the UK for inflammatory social media posts. He mentioned Lucy Connelly, who was facing prison time for a Facebook post critical of migrants. His point was clear: it is normal, though unfortunate, for civilizations to drift away from the principles that once defined them.
Prosperity Leads to Degeneracy
When pressed on why societies move away from what works, Kirk offered a direct answer: prosperity leads to degeneracy. Once a society becomes prosperous, he explained, people no longer practice delayed gratification because they have instant gratification through a surplus of goods. Simultaneously, there is a decline in transcendent moral order, which had previously provided guardrails for behavior.
This prosperity-degeneracy cycle, in Kirk's view, explains why successful societies abandon the traditional structures that made them successful in the first place.
Markets, Morality, and Intervention
Addressing the free market comparison, Kirk clarified his position. He does believe in intervention in markets when something is morally improper. For example, he opposes scamming neighbors or misleading advertising because he believes in a transcendent moral standard. The same principle applies to his views on marriage—both are grounded in an absolute moral framework, not merely market dynamics.
The Questioner's Counterargument: Attachment Theory and Genetics
The questioner acknowledged agreement on foundational points: broken homes are among the strongest predictors of poor life outcomes, independent of socioeconomic factors. He also noted that as countries become more socially egalitarian, rates of female depression and anxiety spike disproportionately—a point that seemed to align with Kirk's concerns.
However, he introduced complexity through evolutionary psychology and neuroscience. He explained that around 50% of adults in the West develop attachment disorders due to factors like industrialized culture, absent parents, and screens raising children. These attachment issues make it very difficult to maintain long-term pair bonds.
Additionally, he pointed to biological factors: variation in oxytocin receptor density and shape, as well as vasopressin mutations, mean that some people simply lack the genetic proclivity for long-term monogamy. Even if only 5% of people feel that traditional rules don't fit them, they will push back, creating ideologies that grow into wider movements—exactly what happened with the sexual revolution.
The Case Against Moral Absolutism
The questioner proposed that when moral absolutism is imposed, it inevitably causes pushback. The sexual revolution, he argued, started as a push for female autonomy but morphed into an exaggerated expression of maximizing individual freedom. His suggestion to Kirk was pragmatic: acknowledge that monogamy works best for most people, but also recognize it doesn't work well for everyone. This nuanced message, he believed, would reach more people.
Kirk's Defense of Moral Absolutism
Kirk thanked the questioner for his thoughtfulness and admitted he had never received such a question before. He then asked a clarifying question: was the questioner against moral absolutism? The answer was yes, though with the caveat that the questioner remained open to changing his mind.
Kirk identified the fundamental divide: the questioner's position was based on preference without a transcendent moral order. Kirk insisted that society must choose what moral standard to live by, and he was very clear about his choice. The lie of modernity over the past 30 years, he argued, has been the promise of "live and let live" with no moral standard. That itself is a moral standard, and it's a bad one that creates suffering and despair.
Kirk stated his moral obligation clearly: not to accommodate when people fall short, but to lift them up toward the standard that is true and that works.
Why People Fall Short: The Death of Religion
When asked what causes people to fall short of long-term monogamy, Kirk cited economic factors but emphasized the biggest reason: the death of religion and Christianity in the West. As America has become less churched, social ills have risen correspondingly. While acknowledging that the UK is even less churched than America, Kirk focused primarily on the American context.
Evolution Versus Religion: Competing Explanations
The questioner, drawing on his study of evolutionary behavior and sexual romantic behavior specifically, offered an alternative explanation. Tracking hunter-gatherer cultures and the impact of agriculture, he observed that ecological conditions reliably predict the prevalence of monogamy and marriage systems. What we call attachment issues appear to be ecological calibrations to environmental conditions.
In unstable environments, it's less optimal for individuals to develop tendencies to rely on long-term pair bonds. Modern industrialization creates a mismatch—absent parents and daycare (which is linked to attachment issues) cause people to struggle with long-term bonding. Combined with genetic factors like vasopressin and oxytocin mutations, some people simply don't have the proclivity for monogamy.
The Stability Question
The questioner asked what would bring stability, noting that the previous century had what might be considered stability, which then became unstable. If moral absolutism worked, why was it lost?
Kirk rejected the premise. Moral absolutism wasn't imposed and then failed—rather, it was lost. Modernity rose, moral relativism replaced moral absolutes in education, and social decay followed. The question of why it was lost, Kirk suggested, was for far smarter minds to fully answer.
The Feminist Mystique and Its Consequences
Kirk did, however, identify what he considers one of the worst decisions in American history: modern feminism, largely stemming from Betty Friedan's "The Feminine Mystique." This work, he argued, falsely portrayed every woman in a monogamous marriage as living under tyrannical conditions.
The result has been catastrophic: women in the West are now the most miserable, most depressed, most suicidal, and most prescription drug-addicted cohort on the planet. Kirk's prescription was clear—we need to appropriately challenge feminism and tell young women that it's not only acceptable but courageous to get married and have children again. This, he believes, would solve many societal problems.
