Month: September 2019

Reading the articles, the most attention-catching passage for me was in “The Perennially Difficult Debate Around Tyrannicide” which discussed the utilitarian view of executing a dictator. The logic behind this reasoning is fairly obvious to me, especially when considering how many historical cases exist where various despots had to be forced out of power by being killed because it was seen by the people as the only way to seize their own liberties and gain a fair rule by a just leader. Tyrannicide should not have to be viewed as bloodshed and violence for the thrill of it, but rather as removing a corrupt and toxic leader for the greater good of the society as a whole.

I was especially fascinated by the portion of this article which discusses the “Trolley Problem,” a classic manner of discussing many scenarios. In this case, I found it incredibly fitting for the morality of executing tyrants; especially the more specified scenario of throwing a fat man off of a bridge in order to stop the death of five individuals. Though this is much harder to reconcile as a human being than the traditional “Trolley Problem,” where all one has to do is pull a lever, hardcore utilitarianswould ultimately make the call that although it is significantly increased participation in the one man’s death, one death is much better than five. In terms of applying this scenario to tyrannies, the numbers are even more drastic. A whole nation versus one person should be easy to reconcile, even if it requires fairly active participation to kill a dictator. The bottom line of this moral dilemma is that the one thing that has to be measured to ensure the one life is worth taking to save many others. Executing the tyrannical leader has to be beneficial to the entire society, or at least a large majority of people in order for his or her death to be morally justified. This is certainly where things can get messy; it is hard to determine what is beneficial for individual’s lives. There are certainly some cases where it is beyond worth it to destroy a corrupt despot, but actually deciding which ones are morally permissible is undoubtedly tricky.

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.

Tyrannicide is a very controversial topic in today’s world. This is because it can be justified in multiple different ways. I thought it was very interesting when it mentioned the idea or actual killing of a tyrant leader can be justified as a good in society. This is because people view killing a tyrant as something that is morally acceptable. Also, some people view killing a tyrant as them “saving the nation”.

According to Andrade, he said that “tyrannicide is part of the American ethos”. In today’s world tyrannicide is being shown everywhere. This is including tv shows and movies such as The Lion King. Young children are being taught this and I find that very interesting. The children may not realize when watching the shows or movies but in the underlying meaning and the lyrics in the song suggests that there are examples of tyrannicide.

After reviewing the two different readings, I found that Tyrannicide is quite an interesting topic due to how people interpret it. Throughout history all around the world, there are people praised for tyrannicide, there are legends and different myths. However, where it gets really interesting is the difference between terrorism and tyrannicide. When is something Terrorism or Tyrannicide? This Terrorism vs Tyrannicide concept is very interesting to me because in simplest terms they are very similar, so what makes one more hated than the other. I found that Tyrannicide has a targeted leader in mind which often is a symbolic leader whereas Terrorism is the act of scaring and threatening all with no specific leader or victim. Basically, there is a lack of discrimination in terrorism but in tyrannicide, the target is symbolic and reasonably precise.

I also found that the United States and Americans are fond of tyrannicide. This was surprising because the idea of patriotism is the one that goes against terrorism. So it’s very interesting that Americans support Tyrannicide due to American History but don’t perceive terrorism the same way because it is an attack on their home. While the articles distinguish the two from each other the average person I feel couldn’t give a strong answer to how the two are different. I mean even I had a hard time figuring it out until after reading the texts. So I thought I would just point out that it’s a weird phenomenon.

Overall I think that Tyrannicide is extreme but can be a necessary option for people living in dictatorships. These are countries where people are exploited and have a poor quality of life due to the tyranny of its current leader. The concept of killing the head of the snake and collapsing the rest of its body can be needed.

Tyrannicide, or the idea that killing a tyrant leader can be justified for the good of the public, is a very controversial idea that goes all the way back to the Ancient Greek and Roman periods. According to Andrade, “like it or not, tyrannicide does form part of the American ethos,” and we are even teaching kids that tyrant leaders should be killed through movies like The Lion King. While I agree in theory that killing a dictator is justified if it will save the lives of many people, I think that in reality it is much more complicated than that and tyrannicide is ultimately not beneficial in most cases.

One reason that I believe tyrannicide is not a good solution in the long run is that the outcome is extremely unpredictable. It can lead to instability if there is not a viable replacement for the tyrant leader who is not also a tyrant. Andrade uses examples from both ancient and recent history to demonstrate this. In the case of Julius Caesar, which is also discussed in the George reading, Brutus’s plan backfired because after even though Caesar was killed, emperors came to power shortly after, and these some of these emperors were even worse tyrants than Caesar. In the modern Middle East, the deaths of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, who were both brutal dictators, have not made Iraq and Libya have led to extreme instability and creation of other terrorist groups.

Another reason that I think tyrannicide is not the best solution is because tyrant dictators are rarely acting entirely alone, they are usually part of a larger movement or group. If the leader or figurehead of the group is killed, someone else who shares the leader’s ideologies could easily step in, and people would not be any better off.

The justification of tyrannicide is something that philosophers and historians constantly theorize about. It is all about one’s opinion and the situation to decide whether it is acceptable. This is because tyrannicide is the act of killing a tyrant who is abusing the power in order to better the community and have a central government. On the other hand, terrorism is an act of violence, usually by an institutional organization, used to promote their differing ideologies. The theories that claim tyrannicide and terrorism are the same are interesting but wrong.

 There are a plethora of reasons for why tyrannicide and terrorism greatly differ, but I think there are two main ones. One is because tyrannicide only targets one person: the tyrant. On the contrary, terrorists chose their victim or hostage at random to send their message and target a larger community. The second and perhaps most significant reason is that tyrannicide is an attempt to uphold the moral principles of natural law. Terrorism is the complete opposite, as terrorists are described as amoral and antinomian.

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.

As I began to read I was a bit confused with how tyrannicide and terrorism were being explained and even compared. Even from the tittle, which is “Distinguishing Classical Tyrannicide from Modern Terrorism. I immediately thought about the recent cases of terrorists we have seen today like the one in El Paso. But to my surprise, the article said nothing remotely close to what I thought terrorism was. So, I had to look up the definition of “Tyrannicide.” Tyrannicide: the killing of a tyrant. Then I had to look up the definition of a “Tyrant.” Tyrant: a cruel and oppressive ruler. 

As I continued reading I was intrigued by how the terms were being used. On page 396 it stated, “tyrannicide and terrorist assassination are distinguished and linked together as antecedent and consequent in a historical chain of causality.” This helped me understand how and in what context terrorism was being used. All in all, and like today I understood that people have and will always have different interpretations of words as they are identified in their environment and community. 

What I found interesting in the Carson article was that how closely we tie leaders with having charisma and how useful it is to have that characteristic if you are a leader and with MLK some people have made the argument that he wasn’t a charismatic leader and he avoided using charisma in his oratory. This is unusual because of how much MLK is perceived as a leader and how most leaders have charisma.

To me MLK was one of the most important people in recent U.S history because of his influence in the African American community and how he has made an impact on today’s society. In his speeches some say that he didn’t have charisma and that he steered away from charisma which brings up the question of which qualities and characteristics did he have that he attracted so many followers?

On the surface, Martin Luther King, Jr. seems like the prototypical Charismatic leader. He was an extremely skilled public speaker who motivated millions of people during a time of oppression. However, I was surprised after reading these two articles that this was not necessarily the case. It was shocking to read about MLK’s flaws; it always seemed like he was this untouchable idol, but learning that he was unfaithful to his wife and struggled with self-confidence, he became more human. Carson also points out that King’s prestige was more of a force than the power he actually had, which goes along with the idea that appearance is more important than reality in the case of a Charismatic leader.

Regardless of his flaws, King possessed many of the traits of a Charismatic leader that we discussed in class, the two most important being style of communication and emotional intelligence. Carson explains that King’s delivery method when he was speaking was like a pastor in church, but the ideas he was communicating were rebellious and non-traditional. This provided King’s audience with a sense a comfort, allowing King to pass along his message without immediately being met with resistance. Carson also describes how King was able to reach both black and white audiences effectively. Obviously, this was a difficult task given the social climate at the time, and it shows how emotionally aware King was of who was listening to him.

It is clear throughout these excerpts, and background knowledge that I had going into these readings, that Martin Luther King Jr. is someone who is a very charismatic human who had leadership qualities that were exercised during his campaign. He had been presented with a very major topic that is still prevalent, though not as harsh, in our society today. He was born at a time to make a difference and he stepped up to answer that call. In the readings it states that he was not looking for but rather received a lifestyle in which he was born into. Growing up in a religious family in Atlanta with his father being a minister at a church, he was able to recognize things first hand and grasp real world topics at ease. Through being exposed to such a lifestyle he had begged for guidance from ahead and with the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King blasted into full effect with all of his characteristics flashing to make a difference. 

Journalists state that King did not want to be remembered for all of his achievements or prizes, like Nobel Peace Prize, he received for all of the miraculous work that he achieved in his lifetime but rather him giving his life for all of man kind. He tried to sacrifice his life for others to have the chance to live and be stress free. Nothing compares to his efforts and the way he went about living his life through a very abnormal way for others, an extremely selfless human being that sticks out like a sore thumb in todays history. 

When it comes to leaders, Martin Luther King is one that is extremely popular and well-known. In the article by Bill George, he asks this question about leadership: “how do you teach it?”. In class, we often question how one becomes a leader and tie it in with the statistic that you are born with one third and make two thirds, as noted from the charisma readings. Leadership qualities can surface when the opportunity presents itself and George hints towards that within the article. “It was a role he neither sought nor was prepared for…”(George 1). With this, he is emphasizing that King wasn’t voluntarily advocating for himself to lead protests but clearly displayed charisma as he was chosen. Leaders rise to the occasion and accept challenges when opportunities present themselves.

While MLK was a profound charismatic leader, he also displayed tendencies that weren’t charismatic. “He was at times reluctant to take on the responsibilities suddenly and unexpectedly thrust upon him”(Carson 29). Though he often presented confidence, there were times in which MLK was instinctually nervous and/or fearful when in potential danger. this shows that many great leaders can display charismatic traits. However, leaders can have moments of unsureness and still remain strong as well as maintain their status as a leader.

In class so far, we have talked a lot about what it means to be a charismatic leader. At first glance, we think that Martin Luther King Jr. embodied all of them and he did but he was so much more than just charisma. Although he was “a profound and provocative public speaker as well as an emotionally powerful one.” (Carson 29), he was also highly educated. He used his vast knowledge of religion to become a powerful leader with substance behind the charisma. He was also very much a product of his time. Carson discussed a lot about how the responsibilities of the leader of the civil rights movement were very much pushed upon King. This interacts with the conversations that we had in class about nature vs. nurture. I think Kings life and leadership demonstrated the 1/3 born, 2/3 made theory. I believe that he was born with the characteristics of a great leader but the tension between white people and African Americans made the perfect spot for King to grow as a charismatic leader.

King was able to rally crowds around a shared goal. Without him, I think the civil rights movement probably would have happened it just would have been a lot less organized and taken a lot longer. Once people band together and try to achieve goals together, change is much more likely to happen. This idea was also demonstrated during the gay rights movements. Once the LGBTQ+ community became one and began fighting for equality, the elected leaders of this nation actually began to listen. There is power in numbers and once a group of unhappy people finds a leader to organize their beliefs and anger, there is a much higher chance of real change happening.