To me, tyrannicide on the assassinator’s part is not a beneficial or, for lack of a better word, good action. As Americans and firm believers in democracy, tyrannicide and the “liberating” of another country excites us and makes us feel important and like leaders or creators of freedom. That being said, us as Americans also have the tendency to not necessarily ignore, but push to the side, the customs and ideals of other countries in pursuit of our values and implementing them in other places. I think that in order to fully allow tyrannicide to be committed, one has to fully understand the tyrant’s country and if the results of the tyrannicide would be truly advantageous for that country. Dr Andrade touches on this in his article when he talks about “hardcore utilitarians” and their morals and beliefs. One example of tyrannicide maybe not being advantageous is the post 9/11 wars in the Middle East that have been going on for over a decade, mostly in the name of tyrannicide in order to take out ISIS or ISIL. So many people have died in this “endless war” and in the end, it may not be all that beneficial for the Middle East due to the number of casualties. Obviously it will be beneficial for the ending of these terrorists groups.
Before reading “Distinguishing Tyrannicide”, I thought that there was a fine line between tyrannicide and terrorism, that was easily crossable; however, after reading the article, I believe that there is pretty definable line between the two. The emphasis on taking out the right person and only the right person and the person committing the act is acting in good faith. Despite the broad line between tyrannicide and terrorism, I still feel like the line can become fuzzy in some cases. So to be very sure of the benefits, those involved with tyrannicide should be very aware of the country they are attempting to save to be positive they will save them.
5 Comments