To me, tyrannicide on the assassinator’s part is not a beneficial or, for lack of a better word, good action. As Americans and firm believers in democracy, tyrannicide and the “liberating” of another country excites us and makes us feel important and like leaders or creators of freedom. That being said, us as Americans also have the tendency to not necessarily ignore, but push to the side, the customs and ideals of other countries in pursuit of our values and implementing them in other places. I think that in order to fully allow tyrannicide to be committed, one has to fully understand the tyrant’s country and if the results of the tyrannicide would be truly advantageous for that country. Dr Andrade touches on this in his article when he talks about “hardcore utilitarians” and their morals and beliefs. One example of tyrannicide maybe not being advantageous is the post 9/11 wars in the Middle East that have been going on for over a decade, mostly in the name of tyrannicide in order to take out ISIS or ISIL. So many people have died in this “endless war” and in the end, it may not be all that beneficial for the Middle East due to the number of casualties. Obviously it will be beneficial for the ending of these terrorists groups.
Before reading “Distinguishing Tyrannicide”, I thought that there was a fine line between tyrannicide and terrorism, that was easily crossable; however, after reading the article, I believe that there is pretty definable line between the two. The emphasis on taking out the right person and only the right person and the person committing the act is acting in good faith. Despite the broad line between tyrannicide and terrorism, I still feel like the line can become fuzzy in some cases. So to be very sure of the benefits, those involved with tyrannicide should be very aware of the country they are attempting to save to be positive they will save them.
I definitely agree that tyrannicide is not a good option in most cases. Related to your point about figuring out if tyrannicide in another country would actually be beneficial for them, I agree that the US should have a better understanding of that country before even considering intervening. However, this leads me to the question of what right does the US have to intervene with tyrannicide in other countries, and can our intervention be successful because we are an outside actor and not the “private men” that George says are the actors in tyrannicide?
I concur whole-heartedly with the statement you typed mentioning Americans’ tendency to ignore and not accept customs and beliefs outside of our own. This observation taps into the concept of the “White [Western/American] savior complex, in which those who adhere to typically Western ideals, such as democracy, attempt to push away opposing ideals or rescue those who live under anything non-democratic. Oftentimes, Americans jump into foreign situations thinking that they are helping, without actually asking others how they could be helped.
I agree with the idea that tyrannicide is something that has to be done in such a specific and delicate way, otherwise it is not serving the intended purpose. Like you said the implications are different in every country and I think that it is not something that the US should do lightly. I also agree with your thoughts on how there is such a fine line between terrorism and tyrannicide because it is different for every persons opinion, so when can we say that it is right or wrong.
I agree with the idea that by “liberating” other countries, us Americans feel as though we are special and changing the world. I also agree with your statement that after doing this, America tends to push their native customs to the side in order to implement our own democratic values. This reminds me of colonization and how Europeans would often get rid of the native’s cultures and replace them with their own in an effort to make them “more civilized”.
I really think this argument is well developed and thought out, and I personally agree with many parts of it. Many times it is often then case that tyrannicide is not the beneficial action for the country/group, however, in times of despair it often seems like that way out, but even then does not make it advantageous. I agree that it has to be done carefully and thoughtfully in order to actually benefit a place, other wise, it is merely murder without a cause–your 9/11 example is a great example of this.