Tyrannicide
Susan Nevin
When I first started the readings on this subject, I had no idea what tyrannicide was. However, once learning that tyrannicide is the killing of a dictator or bad leader, I realized that this is a highly debated topic. I personally believe that yes while getting rid of the figurehead for an evil movement might help to dissipate some of its momentum, I believe that another leader will take his or her place, and that we need to act in other ways to truly get rid of a tyrant or dictator.
There are many that argue that this is the only way we can truly show that something needs to end, and as Andrade said this idea of seeing a leader killed can be seen all the way back in history, even as far as Julius Caesar. The idea of the utilitarian viewpoint comes into play here, as it claims that one death who caused many is no problem at all. But, as seen with Brutus and Caesar, once you get rid of one tyrant, even more come into play, and more issues arrive. Therefore, while it might make people feel better to see the man die who cause them loads of suffering, in my opinion, all it does is satisfy the need for revenge, but doesn’t solve the issue at hand.
The only way for us to truly shift the dynamic of a group is to work on its leadership from the inside out, which is something we are still debating, as it is hard to get that access from an outside perspective where we have little control. However, in some cases, like the killing of Hitler, it can cause an empire to crumble, but this is a unique circumstance, and one that has many moral dilemmas.
It is interesting to think that since the U.S. is an established democracy, which includes an electoral process and all. Yet, if the U.S. weren’t a “democracy” with a presidential leader who was voted in “by the people”, would Mr. Trump be considered a tyrant because of his character and behavior? He is oppressive by word of mouth, yet our democratic system [sometimes] protects U.S. citizens and inhabitants from his oppressive actions.
Also, I couldn’t agree more that killing a tyrannous leader would only satisfy the need for revenge and not solve real issues. Yet, it definitely is a start towards the potential for change because the leader would be removed as a roadblock.
I do see how violence can only lead to more violence, but there is potential for change in that middle ground between leaders in power that can be used for good. Basically, if a tyrant is killed, the next leader or person of power will most likely try to show the people that they are a good person before (and of course if they even do) become crazy and start making crazy death calls. That “grace period” could be used for activists and good people to step in as well and make good changes. Just an idea. Of course I do not support killing in general but I do think that for the most part, having one really truly bad person go down before innocent people do, obviously that is preferred.