Tyrannicide

At first glance, I believe Tyrannicide is impossible to justify morally. However, the readings we did this weak illustrated how and why people have been able to justify it in the past. From a utilitarian perspective I would argue that tyrannicide does, in fact, make sense. If killing a tyrant leader will free the most people and increase the overall happiness of the world, then it is the best possible option. However, that is purely hypothetical and in practice tyrannicide seems much more complicated. For example, you do not know who will take over following the death of the current tyrant leader. It could be someone that takes advantage of an unsure time to become a tyrant leader themself and then the population are surely no better off than before. Furthermore, what if that society is not equipped to move from one leader to the next and does not have enough government structure in place for an easy transition. In theory tyrannicide sounds like it could be effective, but in practice would be far more complex than the utilitarian view makes it out to be. Furthermore, it is morally hard for me to sit with the idea that somebody had to die for the benefit of others.

Throughout George’s article there were a variety of explanations for how tyrannicide and terrorism are similar and differ. There were so many provided that I could see the validity in that I am unsure if I think of terrorism and tyrannicide as the same or different. One strong argument for terrorism and tyrannicide being different was how targets are chosen. In a terrorist event, there is almost nothing that the victim or victims could have done to prevent themselves from being targeted. Tyrannicide, on the other hand, is highly predicatable and there are a limited number of potential victims. In tyrannicide it is far more clear who the victim will be and why there are being targeted. One strong argument for terrorism and tyrannicide being similar is that in both situations the person committing the act views what they are doing as right. They believe that their actions will be a net gain for the world. Though it seems that in terroism this more of a niche belief and not necessarily believed to be true by the majority of the population. The motivation behind killing the victim, however, does appear to be the same. There are many ways that tyrannicide and terrorism could be thought of as similar or different, mkaing it difficult to decide if I believe they are more similar or more different.