Hi Michael, interesting question, I believe speaking ill against the dead is discouraged because of more material reasons than ethical. The reason being that the deceased is unable to respond to the opinion expressed by the speaker. It acquired ethical reason and status because of practice by many. Though I really do not see many practicing it in that spirit today, especially in public life. Could it be possible to say that speaking ill of the deceased is nothing but expression of one's anguish which he or she felt against the deceased and now feels lost because death has snatched his right to express his anguish and receive reasons from the person who is now deceased.

These are random thoughts based on observation of a few people over the last few years. I can say that the ethical reason did not give any solace to them.

That's certainly a possibility, Sai, but I don't get the impression that those who celebrate Thatcher's death are actually grieved that she can no longer answer for her actions. They simply think that she was a bad person and are therefore glad that's she's dead. There's certainly an element of schadenfreude here: serves you right to be dead, good riddance to bad rubbish, and perhaps also protest against the welfare cuts imposed by the present government. But the main ingredient is resentment (or even hatred) of her as a person, as someone who is thought to be responsible for some great wrongs inflicted on people.

But what drives those who express outrage at the celebrations? Is it their belief a) that this particular person, Margaret Thatcher, should not be disrespected in that way because she deserves respect (in which case one may very well disagree with their judgement of Thatcher's worthiness of being respected, and then celebrate without moral impropriety), or b) that, as the rhetoric suggests, nobody's death should be celebrated because it is generally bad to speak ill of the dead. In that case it seems that it would be equally wrong to celebrate the death of, say, Adolf Hitler, as it would to celebrate the death of, say, Mother Teresa. In other words, it would be death itself that changed the status of a person in such a way that it is no longer appropriate to hate them, as if once a person has passed this threshold, all they've ever done is forgotten and forgiven. Good or bad, it no longer makes any difference: the dead are all worthy of respect. Yet if we assume, as I think we must, that it can be appropriate to hate and despise someone when they are still alive, then it is not entirely clear why that same person should not be despised and hated when they are dead. What exactly is it that death changes?

Michael, I look at it like this. Thatcher is gone, soul has left the physical body which remains to be celebrated or derided. Once the soul left it acquired a new identity, so against whom do we express our anger - the body that can no longer respond or the soul that no longer has the identity that anger was associated with. Death removed the recipient of the anger, body and soul. To an extent the anger now became redundant. I know this is something that Hindu philosophy told us and its very difficult to practice. So anger is directed at multiple events, the person, death and destiny that cheated us of an instance to give vent to anger. We are not celebrating the death of Mother Teresa, we are celebrating the movement of the soul to another identity. Death thus becomes similar to other stages of life, each one of them being irreversible.

Hate a person, dead or alive, thus becomes circumstantial, Thatcher's going from this planet was just an instance to remember what she meant to us, good or bad. I heard of her moving on, I celebrated what I knew about her. I am sorry if I digressed from the question, but your answer made an interesting reading. Thanks, Sai

The idea of "morose delectation" over a leader's demise is one that, at the popular level, in an older view of society and the social contract, was viewed as inappropriate vis-a-vis the health of society. Many Italians felt no guilt in responding this way at Mussolini's death because of all of the brutal oppression and death brought about by his dictatorship. It seemed appropriate to rejoice that someone who had brought so much bloodshed and death to their country was gone. However, though leaders in many of the countries of the West have been unpopular with certain segments of the population, people did not ordinarily openly rejoice over their deaths. I think that the response we see marks a change in the nature of Western countries that seems to be more and more widespread. I think it takes the old guard by shock to discover how deep and strong the ill-will runs towards those of the opposing party in society today. In the past politicians and civic leaders would vehemently disagree with one another yet normally they sought to maintain cordiality. Although politics was a topic that tended to foster debate and disagreement, it was not one where the citizenry was so radically polarized and felt quite so justified in hating those of the opposing party as at present.

I don't think the reaction that we are seeing is as much a matter of logic, ethics, or principles as it is a response to the changing of societal norms. The old guard has not, in recent memory, seen their country so strongly polarized in political opinions as at present. I must confess that it sometimes shocks me. I grew up in the USA in the years of Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama. During those years one might have disliked one of our presidents and given voice to that dislike, but not with the sense of righteous indignation and vehement hatred that I sometimes hear from my students. Whether they are from the right or the left they seem to genuinely hate those of the other side. When I was a teen attending The State University of New York we had strong opinions and voiced our opposition to those with whom we disagreed, but I think those of both the left and the right would have considered someone who expressed the hatred I hear today as somehow mentally and emotionally unstable.

I can easily picture this same sort of rejoicing at the death of Bush or Clinton occurring in the future (not so much with Jimmy Carter as he is not perceived as having been as much of an idealogue as the others). To me this is frightening. It signals an unraveling of a certain sense of toleration that was a part of what it meant to be a citizen. From an early age I learned a slogan: "I may not agree with a thing that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I don't think that slogan is being taught today. I think this discussion is one which we may have principially in philosophy or ethics, but it I think the phenomenon we are observing is best understood through the lenses of sociology, political theory, and history. I believe that we are venturing into new territory. I honestly do not know if democracy is sustainable with such a sharply divided citizenry. Shakespeare's Marc Anthony makes a remark that seems somehow fitting here: "O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts, And men have lost their reason."

As to speaking ill of the dead: in principle it would seem that speaking truth of the dead is appropriate whether it be good or ill. Our concern, if we would act with integrity, should be that we not emphasize a ruler's faults and totally ignore or omit his/her good accomplishments and best initiatives. Ethically speaking it is dishonest of me to make a caricature of the politician with whom I disagree and then celebrate the death of the person whose life I have misrepresented. Not only do I speak falsely of the deceased, I debase myself with my own deceit.

Good point, Bill, yes: truth is only truth if it's the whole truth. But it's often difficult to see the whole truth because things are complex, events are complex, people are complex, and some things strike us as more important than others. But since importance is never objective, but always dependent on the perspective, the whole truth is hardly ever an option. We are partial beings, and our judgements are partial too.

Dear Michael definately to speak ill about the dead person is not ethical but when u see so called educated people r speaking against her & dancing on the road, I feel that the morality of human being is decreasing. Few yrs back one controversial Swami Rajaneesh adviced his followers to rejoice & dance after his death. Ex Chief Minister of Bengal donated his body for medical students. So each person will react differently about the death. We should forgive these people who are speaking ill about Thatcher' death.

in the Islam it is not considered ethically and as custom too to speak about dead, as Islam believes that after death it is the job of God to comment on deeds of a person who no more is on earth. But if we follow it, what the hell Historians and Biographers will do?.

Actor network theory provides an alternate way of looking at the controversies over the dead. The dead are important sources of agency, that is their presence makes a difference in a particular context. The debate over Thatcher's "legacy" started long ago and now that she is dead, various groups are attempting to mobilize her in particular ways. Neoliberals and right-wing conservatives who lauded her assault on labor unions, her demonization of the working classes, and her privatization of government assets, now mobilize her legacy as evidence in their further advocacy of privatization and intensified austerity. Conversely, her opponents frame and mobilize her legacy as a series of glaring failures of Thatcher's policies including greatly increased inequality and giveaways to the wealthy corporate classes.

Quite right, Mark, but that doesn't really answer the question whether there is something inherently wrong with speaking ill of the dead, or does it?

Even if our hard core enemy dies, then also we should not feel joy and celebrate.

Because, the dead body will not have the strength to act and/or react appropriately towards our actions.

Michael, is it possible to read an idea of forgiveness being an essential characteristic of the human nature, and hence speaking ill of the dead makes it a violation of that essential feature and therefore is inherently wrong to do so

But it is not practical. Historians and biographers always write about dead. Suppose if I do not discuss good or bad policies of Lord Corzon, how will the people will assess about his history in India?

Yes, but how does Muslims do in their routine life I will tell. As and when a need rises to recite and discuss any deed of a dead person, the who wish to discuss or quote wil first express sorry from dead and then from God (e.g., "Marhum pardon me..." or "Though its God's realm......"). But it is just in family only. The respect is shown for near one only. Suppose if one is taking about his dead elder brother he shall murmur these regretting words. But never for Akbar the great.

If it is wrong to speak ill of the living, it is also wrong to speak ill of the dead.

So the question is not about living or dead but "speaking ill". If you say the difference is the dead is not there to defend herself, the living is also not everywhere to defend herself.

However, we cannot make judgments or as Goswamyji says write history without saying good or bad about people.

Therefore, it is not morally wrong to say bad thing about people after they die, even though it is improper to do so. BAD MANNERS!

We also need to differentiate 'Saying good about good people', 'Saying good about bad people', 'saying bad about good people' and 'saying bad about good people'.

Quite right, Mohan. So the question boils down to "Can it ever be wrong to tell the truth (or what one believes to be the truth) about someone?".

"Speaking ill of the dead" means in this case celebrating the news of someone's death, e.g. because of hostility to the person's actions, qualities, historical role, etc.? (therefore excluding statements like, "Thomas Jefferson was a hypocrite who owned slaves and essentially raped his slave Sally Hemmings.", or "my late uncle sexually abused me when I was 8 years old."). I felt in a minority when many Americans celebrated the news that Navy SEALS shot Osama bin Laden like fans celebrating a Super Bowl victory, and I felt it appropriate only to feel a grim satisfaction, e.g., at the execution of a serial murderer. But this felt more like a matter of taste, that to celebrate was unseemly, bad form, rather than some breach of a moral obligation. Reaction in the case of a Bin Laden or a Boston Marathon bomber can perhaps be distinguished from a Thatcher by relief at some mitigation of a public danger or sense of justice served, though presumably not by those who felt Thatcher needed to face justice. So part of this is our sense of reasonableness about the extent to which death may have been 'just desserts' for the deceased. Death reminds and becomes an occasion to re-feel strong sentiments, but surely must render strong feeling somewhat less relevant and topical (after all, (s)he's now dead), and thus may be more about reaffirming affiliations than about the departed. As for the growing polarization commented on by Bill, I'm influenced by UVA social psychologist Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Division."

Yes, I've read Haidt's book and mostly agree with him (and you). Public demonstrations of joy over Thatcher's death were certainly, knowingly or not, also directed against the present Tory government, against welfare cuts and other austerity measures. Similarly, the eulogies on Thatcher were also self-congratulatory. People took sides in a social struggle: about how the past ought to be remembered, and thus how the present ought to be perceived.

I feel history has been unfair to Thatcher, even in her death. In that context, I agree with you that speaking ill of the dead is actually venting out one's anger at the current situation that may have a remote possible connection or similarity with the deceased. Death is another event to revisit the past and vent out any remnants of anger that remain, so people speak ill of the dead. Death, acc to them, could be that they feel cheated out of a revenge and so they speak out their mind