And this is true too… but it is less about not speaking ill of the dead and more about considering the time, place, or reason. Which is true about any language about a person, alive or dead.
Probably, standing up a the funeral in a room of people who are mourning and talking about the bad deeds of the deceased is selfish and disruptive. But letting your perspective be known when casual conversation turns to the deceased? Appropriate.
And, there is a difference between ‘speaking ill’ of someone, and speaking honestly about their intentions. "He was a jerk” or even “He was racist” is maybe speaking ill, but “he didn’t think black people in positions of responsibility could be trusted” is not speaking ill, it’s reiterating his stated position.
I would in fact argue that the best time to speak badly of the dead is right after they’ve died, when their legacy and life is freshest in the public consciousness. It would be unbalanced to say that you can only speak good of someone who died, when everyone’s attention is on them, and not bad.
Dial it back. You’re in Great Debates, not the Pit. There are plenty of other threads where it would be fine to express this sentiment. This is not one of them, even ironically.
Yes; there are cases of people invited in to speak about the deceased at a funeral and talking about how they are burning in hell for being gay or an atheist. That is the sort of thing that I both consider over the line, and an example of how the nasty people of the world won’t show any reciprocation; they’ll demand respect but never give it.
Same here. I spoke ill of Charlie Kirk last night. A bad person continues to have been a bad person even after they died. People speak ill of Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot all the time and they are all dead. I don’t see why the principle shouldn’t apply to less evil flawed people as well.
I think “Never speak ill of the dead” is another one of these hokum ideas coming from religion and superstition like the idea that lying is evil under all circumstances or the idea that you should always forgive someone no matter how many times they wrong you. My morality is based on secular values, therefore I can reject platitudes such as these and form my own opinion about what is moral.
Upon further reflection, here’s what I would do to balance sensitivity and truth telling if I had a podcast or other major media platform that covers politics and current events and someone like Charlie Kirk was murdered: I’d spend a good five minutes or so extending my sympathy to the family, and denouncing the evils of violence. Then I’d say that because we are granting rare honors to Charlie Kirk that 99.9+% of violent crime victims don’t receive, I think we must give a fair assessment of his legacy, even if that makes people feel uncomfortable. Charlie Kirk said some unpleasant things, and if you’re not in the mood to hear them right now I would urge the listener to click away and do something else. If you’re still listening, here are some verbatim quotes from Kirk for you reflect on…
The phrase is obviously Latin, and research tells me it actually goes back to Classic-age Greece:
Attributed to Chilon of Sparta, who was one of the Seven Sages of Greece, the aphoristic recommendation about not speaking ill of the dead was first recorded in Classical Greek, as: τὸν τεθνηκóτα μὴ κακολογεῖν (“Of the dead do not speak ill.”), in chapter 70 of Book 1 of Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, by Diogenes Laërtius, in the 4th century AD.
I’ve seen passing mention of one rationale for this, amounting to “it’s poor form to defame someone who can’t defend their reputation”. Does anyone else know of any other citable reason why the ancients felt this way? Superstition, for instance? (“Curse the dead and they’ll haunt you.”)
If their reasons don’t make any sense in our time and society, maybe there’s no valid reason for such a prohibition.
If we’re talking about a public figure, even if they are deceased they still probably have people that can speak up on their behalf. So I’m not buying that particular argument.
You’ve drilled down much farther than I cared to. I was speaking generally. I see no point in bringing up bad things about someone if the subject hasn’t already been broached. I also see no good reason to remain silent when someone is sugar-coating someone who did or said hateful things.
The man died in the middle of spewing yet another hate-filled attack. Any negative comments on this man have been outstripped by a factor of 10:1 with massive attempts to deify both him and his words.