What is your opinion of 'tyrannicide'?
Does your political ideology and/or religion recognize or oppose this practice?
Obviously, most developed countries today have annulled the death penalty and that is an undoubted social, and moral good, in my estimation.
The willful taking of a human life, except in the most serious cases of self-defense whereby recourse to all other means are inapplicable (or have been exhausted), is a grave evil.
But what of the case when the common good of society is threatened by the usurpation or arbitrary oppression of a tyrannical ruler, and the only way to safeguard the liberties of the subjects is to 'take down' the dictator?
This can be a morally grey area, since would-be political murderers aiming to undermine legitimate, constitutional rule, could readily exploit the 'tyrant' concept to justify coups or armed juntas in the 'name of the people'. Most infamously and tragically, perhaps, is the case of John Wilkes Booth who, having assassinated President Abraham Lincoln, declared "that's the way with tyrants" or, more literally, "ever thus to tyrants".
Now, Lincoln had - of course - not been a 'tyrant' in the eyes of the majority of civilized people outside the Southern Confederate States, who recognized the Union as the lawfully constituted and sovereign government of America and the secessionists as pro-slavery rebels (well, at least in retrospect that is).
On the night of Bobby Kennedy's assassination in 1968 a close friend phoned the political theortist Bernard Crick, her voice quivering with emotion: "Bernard, the killing of the two Kennedy brothers is so terrible, so wrong; but we must not let go of the doctrine of tyrannicide. We must draw distinctions."
Do you think that such 'distinctions' either can or should be drawn? What, if anything, separates tyrannicide from cold-blooded assassination or acts of terrorism?
Does your political ideology and/or religion recognize or oppose this practice?
Obviously, most developed countries today have annulled the death penalty and that is an undoubted social, and moral good, in my estimation.
The willful taking of a human life, except in the most serious cases of self-defense whereby recourse to all other means are inapplicable (or have been exhausted), is a grave evil.
But what of the case when the common good of society is threatened by the usurpation or arbitrary oppression of a tyrannical ruler, and the only way to safeguard the liberties of the subjects is to 'take down' the dictator?
This can be a morally grey area, since would-be political murderers aiming to undermine legitimate, constitutional rule, could readily exploit the 'tyrant' concept to justify coups or armed juntas in the 'name of the people'. Most infamously and tragically, perhaps, is the case of John Wilkes Booth who, having assassinated President Abraham Lincoln, declared "that's the way with tyrants" or, more literally, "ever thus to tyrants".
Now, Lincoln had - of course - not been a 'tyrant' in the eyes of the majority of civilized people outside the Southern Confederate States, who recognized the Union as the lawfully constituted and sovereign government of America and the secessionists as pro-slavery rebels (well, at least in retrospect that is).
On the night of Bobby Kennedy's assassination in 1968 a close friend phoned the political theortist Bernard Crick, her voice quivering with emotion: "Bernard, the killing of the two Kennedy brothers is so terrible, so wrong; but we must not let go of the doctrine of tyrannicide. We must draw distinctions."
Do you think that such 'distinctions' either can or should be drawn? What, if anything, separates tyrannicide from cold-blooded assassination or acts of terrorism?
Last edited:
