Reading both articles it dawned on me that the word tyrannicide is rarely used in literature outside of the historical context. From my understanding, this is partly because of the extremely negative connotation it carries, but also because our modern definition of tyrannicide is the same as terror assassination, which somehow has a good connotation. I’m not too sure as to when this change occurred but more importantly, why the change in the time period has led to us viewing murder as a positive thing. In George’s text, he claimed that the individuals who killed tyrants were sacrificing themselves for what they believed was a greater common good. Yet, in the same time period, assassinations were seen as a private good- not for the good of the community. This again begs me to question the usage of the word assassination in contrast to tyrannicide. One is said to be good for everyone while the other is only beneficial for one individual- despite the fact that they are the same thing.<\/p>\n
Another interesting part of the reading was Andrade’s point that the idea of killing the tyrant or the person rebelling against the status quo is ingrained into American society. Thinking further about this idea led me to realize that it has a direct correlation to our idea of the hero’s journey and leaders. In order to become a “hero”, it is necessary for one to go out on a journey, pass obstacles and kill those who are in their way (tyrants) in order to be considered heroes. Combatting and killing the enemy is a necessary step to becoming a true hero. It is part of our American ethos and even patriotic to kill those who rebel against what we believe and our government. This political murder is considered a positive thing even though tyrannicide is not.<\/p>\n
Lastly, Andrade writes that these choices to kill tyrants for the public good are driven by moral integrity and pure motives (George) yet, it often doesn’t take into consideration the backlash. Tyrannicide leaves room for instability in governments and revenge within the population. This lack of thought about consequences makes it evident that although tyrannicide may be intended for the public good the results, at times, may simply be a private benefit.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Reading both articles it dawned on me that the word tyrannicide is rarely used in literature outside of the historical context. From my understanding, this…<\/p>\n