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.
I really really like your comment about Tyrannicide. You state that the death is not about just killing someone for the thrill of it or for entertainment but rather the idea that in order for a person in power who is corrupting the entirety of whomever is around them, then death is a way to delete their systematic ways and implement new ones. Death is a very efficient way to accomplish this.
You ended by talking about how to know if killing the single tyrant is good for everyone, and I was wondering the same thing. In last class, we talked about how positive vs. toxic charisma is very subjective, and I think this dilemma operates the same. It is impossible for everyone to agree all the time, making it impossible to know if eliminating the tyrant will please the majority of people.