{"id":173331,"date":"2026-03-01T06:38:37","date_gmt":"2026-03-01T14:38:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=173331"},"modified":"2026-03-01T06:42:12","modified_gmt":"2026-03-01T14:42:12","slug":"is-it-bad-to-celebrate-the-deaths-of-your-enemies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=173331","title":{"rendered":"Is It Bad To Celebrate The Deaths Of Your Enemies?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Graeme Wood writes in The Atlantic today<\/a>: “Celebrating or calling for the deaths of others is wrong, and bad for the soul.” <\/p>\n

That is not backed by evolution, so it is a status play. Graeme says he’s better than you, if you have normal emotions.<\/p>\n

Graeme Wood is not writing as a random guy on X. He writes from within The Atlantic, which represents a high status liberal institutional coalition. That coalition\u2019s currency is moral seriousness, restraint, and distance from raw tribal emotion. Saying \u201ccelebrating or calling for the deaths of others is wrong, and bad for the soul\u201d does at least three things.<\/p>\n

First, it signals elite self control. Evolution did not wire humans to feel only compassion for enemies. We evolved to bond through shared outrage and shared triumph over rivals. Intergroup conflict is one of the strongest engines of solidarity. People often do feel satisfaction when a perceived enemy is harmed. That is not a glitch. It is predictable coalition psychology.<\/p>\n

Second, it draws a status boundary. High status coalitions differentiate themselves from what they frame as the mob. The subtext is: we are not like those people who revel in blood. We have souls. We have standards. That move elevates the speaker and demotes the target audience who might be cheering.<\/p>\n

Third, it protects institutional legitimacy. If your coalition depends on rules, norms, and international order, you cannot publicly endorse vengeance. Even if many members privately feel it. So you moralize against the impulse. You convert a tribal reaction into a character flaw.<\/p>\n

From an evolutionary lens, the more accurate claim would be conditional. Celebrating the death of an enemy can strengthen in group bonds and deter rivals. It can also brutalize a coalition and escalate cycles of revenge. Whether it is \u201cbad for the soul\u201d depends on what kind of coalition you are trying to build and what reputation you need.<\/p>\n

So yes, it is not a neutral statement about human nature. It is a moralized signal about what kind of tribe he wants to represent and what kind of status game he is playing.<\/p>\n

Evolutionary biology suggests that the logic of human behavior often rests on tribal survival rather than universal moral dictates. Altruism usually extends to the kin group or the reciprocal circle, while hostility toward an out-group can function as an adaptive strategy. If an individual signals intense disapproval of an enemy, they demonstrate loyalty to their own tribe. This reinforces their position within the social hierarchy and ensures they receive the protection and resources of the collective.<\/p>\n

Wood makes a moral and spiritual claim, but evolutionary psychology looks at the symmetry between reputation and fitness. Calling for the death of an antagonist acts as a high-cost signal of commitment. It tells the group that the speaker is fully invested in the collective struggle. This behavior may appear “bad for the soul” in a philosophical sense, but it often serves as a calculated move to gain social capital or “status” within a specific ecosystem.<\/p>\n

The rejection of such rhetoric is also a status play. It signals a move toward a more expansive, cosmopolitan identity that transcends primitive tribalism. By positioning oneself above the fray, a speaker claims a higher moral ground which carries its own form of social authority. Both the celebration of death and the condemnation of that celebration rely on the same underlying mechanism of social signaling.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Graeme Wood writes in The Atlantic today: “Celebrating or calling for the deaths of others is wrong, and bad for the soul.” That is not backed by evolution, so it is a status play. Graeme says he’s better than you, … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[59],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-173331","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ethics"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t