Andrade establishes his belief that “tyrannicide does form part of the American ethos” and although different by definition, this claim reminded me of the long history America has regarding dictators and the ease in which we have killed and replaced them (Andrade, 2019). For example, America’s active role in helping place Pinochet in power in Chile. Pinochet went on to be a violent dictator and instill deep-rooted fear into Chileans. We supported him. Yet on the topic of tyranny, Andrade believes Americans are “only truly satisfied” when a tyrant faces death. George defines tyranny as “the generic term for this illegitimate, unconstitutional… lawless, violent rule” (George, 1988, pp. 407). My reason for making this comparison is to bring to light a strange dichotomy in the ethos of American history as Andrade phrased it. Tyrants must die because their power is lawless and a nation is at stake, but a ruthless dictator deserves support despite their corrupt path to leadership and horrible actions to their entire country. Where exactly is the distinguishing line here?
For me, through reading the distinguishing factors between terrorism and tyrannicide, I couldn’t help but reconsider the concept of the Trolley Problem that Andrade references. Complications arise when “the participation in killing… is far more active” for an individual (Andrade, 2019). I am not surprised that this problem has found many people will choose to kill fewer people in the scenario, but I had never heard of the version including the fat man being thrown from a bridge. In terrorism, the “use of the victim as a means to an end, that is, as in instrument for sending signals to some third party” means the victim does not matter (George, 1998, pp. 400). But, in tyrannicide the notion of pulling the lever to only kill one, the tyrant, holds so much more leverage. That one action is the beginning and the end of the intended message. And considering enough people are deterred from the question simply because that one person would have to be actively added into the equation (unfortunately in my opinion) makes for a pretty good argument that one who commits tyrannicide, commits one of “’the finest of all glorious deeds’” (George, 1998, pp. 392). Actively, they save a group of people at the expense of one tyrant’s life.
As much as I agree that violent and corrupt leaders don’t deserve to be in charge, how do we ensure that the fall out isnt worse than the current state of the nation? If we had assassinated Pinochet, how could we have known that another leader wouldnt be worse or if the assassination would lead to a financial crash? I also don’t agree that any one person or group of people has the right to decide who gets to live and who gets to die. If we were to kill a tyrant thats still murder even if they’re a horrible person. I totally agree that they should be punished but I dont believe that anyone gets to decide that another living human being doesn’t deserve to have a life anymore.
I thought the trolley problem was interesting as well. I heard of a scenario that was the one person in front of the trolley was someone important in their life so then you had to choose whether to kill five random strangers or to kill one person that you knew really well and cared for. I also had definitely not heard of the bridge scenario and I thought that was a very problematic topic as well.
I really liked how you related the United States’ involvement with revolutions in other countries to this topic of tyrannicide versus terrorism. I think the distinguishing line for Americans between supporting a tyrant and a ruthless dictator is determining who we think upholds “democracy” best. The U.S. also has a history of putting our interests above others, and if we are benefiting from the rule of a dictator, no one seems to care how they rule.
I liked that you used the two variations of the trolley problem to distinguish between the two terms because I had not thought of this but it explains it very well. When someone has intentions that focus on something bigger than themselves (i.e. the greater good), then it is easy to focus on the people you could be saving, even if that person themselves is the person who takes out the tyrant. Because terrorists aim to spread a message opposed to targeting one person, the ways in which they broadcast that message are less significant.