I think tyrannicide is a very controversial topic because of the ways in which it can be justified; that being said, many believe that the degree to which tyrannicide is acceptable depends on how beneficial it would be for the nation as a whole. Dr. Andrade argues that philosophers who analyze this matter approach it with “utilitarian reasoning,” meaning they determine right from wrong by focusing on outcomes. These philosophers defend their ideals by saying that certain nations are simply better off without their tyrants, and that tyrannicide is therefore necessary when the tyrant refuses to step out of power. However, this makes me wonder about how effective tyrannicide truly is, as there is no guarantee that the outcome will be advantageous. The author brings up the Middle East as an example; the death Saddam and Gaddafi did not lead to drastic improvements in Iraq and Libya.
David George explores the difference between terrorist assassinations and tyrannicide, bringing up a very interesting theory that “both acts are performed purportedly in the public interest, namely, to liberate the people”. George even mentioned one writer who claimed that tyrannicide is no different than “good terrorism,” but to me the justification for tyrannicide is much clearer than that of any act of terrorism.
One of the most eye opening sections of these two readings was when Dr. Andrade pointed out that “tyrannicide is a major theme of The Lion King”. This came to me as a surprise because I had never considered that children’s movie to relate to tyrannicide, but it shows how even kids are exposed to the idea that tyrants should be killed. However, I still feel uncertain about the benefits of tyrannicide, as there is often a lack for someone to fill the void of the tyrant- as well as the contributing fact that most tyrants obtained some level of popularity. On that note, dictators with a shortage of supporters may be more easily replaceable. Overall, the effectiveness of tyrannicide is based on careful speculation of how the nation would stand (politically and economically) without the tyrant’s rule, and whether or not killing that tyrant would lead to positive outcomes.
This is a great point that sometimes tyrannicide is not always as effective as it is believed to be. As the readings discussed, the governments of Libya and Iraq both face grave challenges to their sovereignty and legitimacy. While the US has proved its military capacity to oust regimes and crush tyrannical opposition. we still have a long way to go in interpreting geopolitical information and deciding how to rebuild the fragile institutions of these previously autocratic nations- a challenge we may realize we don’t want to be involved in at all.