Andrade establishes his belief that \u201ctyrannicide does form part of the American ethos\u201d 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\u2019s 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 \u201conly truly satisfied\u201d when a tyrant faces death. George defines tyranny as \u201cthe generic term for this illegitimate, unconstitutional\u2026 lawless, violent rule\u201d (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?<\/p>\n
For me, through reading the distinguishing factors between terrorism and tyrannicide, I couldn\u2019t help but reconsider the concept of the Trolley Problem that Andrade references. Complications arise when \u201cthe participation in killing\u2026 is far more active\u201d 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 \u201cuse of the victim as a means to an end, that is, as in instrument for sending signals to some third party\u201d 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 \u201c\u2019the finest of all glorious deeds\u2019\u201d (George, 1998, pp. 392). Actively, they save a group of people at the expense of one tyrant\u2019s life.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Andrade establishes his belief that \u201ctyrannicide does form part of the American ethos\u201d and although different by definition, this claim reminded me of the long…<\/p>\n