The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. The specific issue is: Mostly Eurocentric, no coverage of Russian or Chinese philosophers or political theorists; no coverage of Russian, Chinese, or Japanese tyrannicides. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate.(July 2024) ( Learn how and when to remove this message )
Look up tyrannicide in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Tyrannicide or tyrannomachia is the killing or assassination of a tyrant or unjust ruler, purportedly for the common good,[1] and usually by one of the tyrant's subjects.[2] Tyrannicide was legally permitted and encouraged in Classical Athens. Often, the term "tyrant" was a justification for political murders by rivals, but in some exceptional cases students of Platonic philosophy risked their lives against tyrants. The killing of Clearchus of Heraclea in 353 BC by a cohort led by his own court philosopher is considered a sincere tyrannicide. A person who carries out a tyrannicide is also called a "tyrannicide".[3]
The term originally denoted the action of Harmodius and Aristogeiton, who are often called the Tyrannicides, in killing Hipparchus of Athens in 514 BC.[4] In modern terms, carrying out a tyrannicide, as in taking life of another person, is a criminal act, and lawbreakers are liable to police arrest and trial by a court.
Plato describes a violent tyrant as the opposite of a good and "true king" in the Statesman,[6] and while Aristotle in the Politics sees it as opposed to all other beneficial forms of government, he also described tyrannicide mainly as an act by those wishing to gain personally from the tyrant's death, while those who act without hope of personal gain or to make a name for themselves are rare.[7]
Support for tyrannicide can be found in Cicero's De Officiis.[8] Cicero presents a philosophical stance that in certain extreme circumstances, tyrannicide can be considered a moral duty. Cicero argues that when a ruler becomes a tyrant, violating the laws and oppressing the people, it is the duty of citizens to protect the state and restore justice, even if it means taking drastic measures such as killing the tyrant. He believed that the welfare of the state and the protection of its citizens should take precedence over the life of a tyrant who endangers these principles.[9][10]
Support for tyrannicide can also be found in Seneca's Hercules Furens,[6] Seneca delves into the complex and often tragic nature of resisting tyranny. Through his dramatic narratives, Seneca portrays the psychological and ethical struggles faced by those who stand against oppressive rulers. In Hercules Furens, the titular hero grapples with madness and the burdens of his immense strength, ultimately exploring themes of resistance against unjust authority. Seneca uses his characters to illustrate the moral complexities and the potential justifications for tyrannicide, highlighting the internal and external conflicts that arise when confronting tyranny.[11][12]
Plutarch, in his biographical works, notably in Parallel Lives, presented tyrannicide as a defense of liberty and justice. He highlighted the moral dimensions of such acts through figures like Brutus, who assassinated Julius Caesar to protect the Roman Republic, and Timoleon of Corinth, who killed his tyrannical brother to save Corinth. Plutarch praised these actions as noble sacrifices made for the greater good, underscoring the idea that tyrannicide, when motivated by a selfless commitment to civic virtue, can be a legitimate and necessary act to preserve collective freedom and justice.[13] This perspective aligns with earlier philosophical views, such as Aristotle's, which justified the removal of a tyrant if it served the common good.[14][15]
Medieval thought
Augustine of Hippo debated the moral and ethical implications of tyrannicide within a Christian framework. Augustine argued that while resisting tyranny could be morally justified, it was essential to weigh such actions against the broader principles of Christian ethics and the potential for violence and disorder. His writings reflect a nuanced view, acknowledging the tension between the necessity of opposing unjust rulers and the dangers of inciting greater harm through violent resistance.[16] As R. A. Markus notes, Augustine’s approach to tyrannicide was heavily influenced by his overarching concern for maintaining social order and preventing anarchy, even while recognizing the moral repugnance of tyranny.[17] In contrast, Gregory of Nazianzus[18] and John Chrysostom[19] framed the death of Emperor Julian the Apostate as a divine judgment rather than explicitly addressing the concept of tyrannicide. They emphasized Julian's demise as evidence of the triumph of Christianity over paganism.[20]
During the Middle Ages, most theologians were influenced on the subject by Augustine's The City of God, which said that Christians should obey secular authority.[21] The scholastic philosopher John of Salisbury was the first medieval Christian scholar to defend tyrannicide,[22] under specific conditions, in the Policraticus, circa 1159.[23] His theory was derived from his idea of the state as a political organism in which all the members cooperate actively in the realization of the common utility and justice. He held that when the ruler of this body politic behaves tyrannically, failing to perform his characteristic responsibilities, the other limbs and organs are bound by their duty to the public welfare and God to correct and, ultimately, to slay the tyrant.[24]
In Thomas Aquinas's commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, Aquinas gave a defense not only of disobedience to an unjust authority, using as an example Christian martyrs in the Roman Empire, but also of "one who liberates his country by killing a tyrant." For Aquinas, "when what is ordered by an authority is opposed to the object for which that authority was constituted ... not only is there no obligation to obey the authority, but one is obliged to disobey it, as did the holy martyrs who suffered death rather than obey the impious commands of tyrants."[25]
Renaissance to Enlightenment
In 1408, the theologian Jean Petit used biblical examples to justify tyrannicide following the murder of Louis I, Duke of Orleans, by Petit's patron John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy. Petit argued that tyrannicide was not only permissible but commendable when the ruler in question posed a threat to the public good. This justification was based on interpretations of biblical figures who had acted against tyrants in defense of divine and moral laws. Petit's thesis sparked significant controversy and was extensively discussed in ecclesiastical and political circles. Ultimately, the Church anathematized Petit's views at the Council of Constance, condemning them as contrary to Christian teachings on legitimate authority and the sanctity of rulers.[26][27]
A Shorte Treatise of Politike Power, written by John Ponet in 1556, argued that the people are custodians of natural and divine law, and that if governors and kings violated their trust, then they forfeited their power, whether they relinquished their positions voluntarily or whether they had to be removed forcefully.[28] The Monarchomachs in particular developed a theory of tyrannicide, with Juan de Mariana describing their views in the 1598 work De rege et regis institutione,[29] in which he wrote, "[B]oth the philosophers and theologians agree, that the prince who seizes the state with force and arms, and with no legal right, no public, civic approval, may be killed by anyone and deprived of his life..."[8] The Jesuisticcasuistry developed a similar theory, criticized by Blaise Pascal in the Provincial Letters.[30]The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates by John Milton in 1649 also described the history of tyrannicide, and a defense of it when appropriate.[31]
John Locke, in his Second Treatise of Government (1689), argued that people have the right to overthrow a government that fails to protect their natural rights, which includes tyrannicide as a form of legitimate resistance. Locke posited that a tyrant, by definition, acts against the interest of the people and forfeits the right to rule. In such cases, it becomes the moral duty of the citizens to remove the tyrant to restore natural law and order. Locke's political theory profoundly influenced the development of modern democratic thought, emphasizing the protection of life, liberty, and property as fundamental rights.[32][33]
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in The Social Contract (1762), touches on the idea of the general will and the right of the people to overthrow a tyrant who acts against it. Rousseau argued that sovereignty belongs to the people, and any government that does not act in accordance with the general will is illegitimate. This perspective supports the notion that the people have the right to depose a tyrant who violates the social contract. Rousseau's work laid the philosophical foundation for the French Revolution and continues to be a critical text in discussions of political legitimacy and popular sovereignty.[34][35]
Abraham Lincoln believed that assassinating a leader is morally justified when a people has suffered under a tyrant for an extended period of time and has exhausted all legal and peaceful means of ouster.[36] He saw tyrannicide as a necessary last resort to protect liberty and justice. Lincoln's views, shaped by the American Civil War, reflect the ethical debate on violent resistance against tyranny, emphasizing that removing a despot can be a moral imperative to restore democratic governance and human rights.[37][38] Lincoln was himself assassinated in 1865—with the assailant shouting "sic semper tyrannis" ("thus always to tyrants") during the act—as part of an unsuccessful conspiracy to overthrow the government.[39]
Carl Schmitt, in Political Theology (1922) and The Concept of the Political (1932), addresses the nature of sovereignty and the state of exception. Schmitt argues that in extreme situations, the normal legal order can be suspended to address existential threats, which can include justifications for extreme measures like tyrannicide. His ideas have been influential and controversial in discussions about the limits of legal and political authority.[40][41]
Leo Strauss, in On Tyranny (1956), engages deeply with classical and modern discussions on tyranny. Strauss analyzes the philosophical implications of opposing tyrannical rule and the potential justification for tyrannicide, drawing on historical examples and philosophical arguments to explore the moral complexities of resisting despotism.[42][43]
Hannah Arendt, in her work On Violence (1970), explores the nature of power, violence, and authority. Arendt argues that violence can be justified in certain circumstances, particularly when it is used to combat oppressive regimes and restore political freedom. While she does not focus exclusively on tyrannicide, her analysis provides a framework for understanding the ethical justifications for violent resistance against tyranny.[44][45]
John Rawls, although primarily known for his theories of justice, touches on the conditions under which civil disobedience and resistance to unjust authority can be morally justified in A Theory of Justice (1971). Rawls argues that when a government acts tyrannically, violating the principles of justice and fairness, citizens have the right to resist, which may include tyrannicide under extreme circumstances.[46][47]
Michael Walzer, in Just and Unjust Wars (1977), examines the ethics of war and resistance, including the moral considerations surrounding the assassination of tyrants. Walzer discusses tyrannicide within the broader context of just war theory, arguing that in some cases, killing a tyrant may be necessary to protect innocent lives and restore justice.[48][49]
David George, in Distinguishing Classical Tyrannicide from Modern Terrorism (1988), has argued that terrorism is a form of tyranny of which tyrannicide is a negation.[50] He posits that tyrannicide serves as a countermeasure to terrorism, which uses fear and violence to subjugate populations. In George's view, the assassination of tyrants can be an act of liberation, dismantling oppressive structures and restoring autonomy. This situates tyrannicide within a broader discourse on the ethics of political violence, suggesting it aims to eliminate tyranny and restore justice.[51]
Aoife O'Donoghue explores the concept of tyranny and tyrannicide within the broader context of the global legal order in her book On Tyranny and the Global Legal Order (2021). O'Donoghue delves into the historical and philosophical foundations of tyrannicide, examining its evolution and relevance in contemporary political thought. Her analysis highlights the intersection of tyrannicide with issues of global justice, sovereignty, and international law, providing a nuanced understanding of how the act of resisting tyranny through violence is viewed in modern legal and ethical frameworks.[52]
Throughout history, many leaders have died under the pretext of tyrannicide. Hipparchus, one of the last Greek leaders to use the title of "tyrant", was assassinated in 514 BC by Harmodius and Aristogeiton, the original tyrannicides.[53][4] Since then "tyrant" has been a pejorative term lacking objective criteria. Many rulers and heads of state have been considered tyrannical by their enemies but they have not been considered tyrannical by their supporters. For example, when John Wilkes Boothassassinated Abraham Lincoln in 1865, he wrote that he considered Lincoln a tyrant and he compared himself to Marcus Junius Brutus,[54] who stabbed the Roman dictatorJulius Caesar in 44 BC.[55] Booth famously shouted "sic semper tyrannis" during the assassination.
Marcus Junius Brutus was a Roman politician, orator, and the most famous of the assassins of Julius Caesar. After being adopted by a relative, he used the name Quintus Servilius Caepio Brutus, which was retained as his legal name. He is often referred to simply as Brutus.
Gaius Cassius Longinus was a Roman senator and general best known as a leading instigator of the plot to assassinate Julius Caesar on 15 March 44 BC. He was the brother-in-law of Brutus, another leader of the conspiracy. He commanded troops with Brutus during the Battle of Philippi against the combined forces of Mark Antony and Octavian, Caesar's former supporters, and committed suicide after being defeated by Mark Antony.
John Bordley Rawls was an American moral, legal and political philosopher in the modern liberal tradition. Rawls has been described as one of the most influential political philosophers of the 20th century.
The right of self-defense is the right for people to use reasonable or defensive force, for the purpose of defending one's own life (self-defense) or the lives of others, including, in certain circumstances, the use of deadly force.
The just war theory is a doctrine, also referred to as a tradition, of military ethics that aims to ensure that a war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just. It has been studied by military leaders, theologians, ethicists and policymakers. The criteria are split into two groups: jus ad bellum and jus in bello. The first group of criteria concerns the morality of going to war, and the second group of criteria concerns the moral conduct within war. There have been calls for the inclusion of a third category of just war theory dealing with the morality of post-war settlement and reconstruction. The just war theory postulates the belief that war, while it is terrible but less so with the right conduct, is not always the worst option. Important responsibilities, undesirable outcomes, or preventable atrocities may justify war.
A tyrant, in the modern English usage of the word, is an absolute ruler who is unrestrained by law, or one who has usurped a legitimate ruler's sovereignty. Often portrayed as cruel, tyrants may defend their positions by resorting to repressive means. The original Greek term meant an absolute sovereign who came to power without constitutional right, yet the word had a neutral connotation during the Archaic and early Classical periods. However, Greek philosopher Plato saw tyrannos as a negative form of government, and on account of the decisive influence of philosophy on politics, deemed tyranny the "fourth and worst disorder of a state."
Tyrants lack "the very faculty that is the instrument of judgment"—reason. The tyrannical man is enslaved because the best part of him (reason) is enslaved, and likewise, the tyrannical state is enslaved, because it too lacks reason and order.
Sic semper tyrannis is a Latin phrase meaning "thus always to tyrants". In contemporary parlance, it means tyrannical leaders will inevitably be overthrown. The phrase also suggests that bad but justified outcomes should, or eventually will, befall tyrants. It is the state motto of Virginia.
Cleisthenes, or Clisthenes, was an ancient Athenian lawgiver credited with reforming the constitution of ancient Athens and setting it on a democratic footing in 508 BC. For these accomplishments, historians refer to him as "the father of Athenian democracy". He was a member of the aristocratic Alcmaeonid clan. He was the younger son of Megacles and Agariste making him the maternal grandson of the tyrant Cleisthenes of Sicyon. He was also credited with increasing the power of the Athenian citizens' assembly and for reducing the power of the nobility over Athenian politics.
Hipparchus was a member of the ruling class of Athens and one of the sons of Pisistratus. He was a tyrant of the city of Athens from 528/527 BC until his assassination by the tyrannicides Harmodius and Aristogeiton in 514 BC.
Harmodius and Aristogeiton were two lovers in Classical Athens who became known as the Tyrannicides for their assassination of Hipparchus, the brother of the tyrant Hippias, for which they were executed. A few years later, in 510 BC, the Spartan king Cleomenes I forced Hippias to go into exile, thereby opening the way to the subsequent democratic reforms of Cleisthenes. The Athenian democrats later celebrated Harmodius and Aristogeiton as national heroes, partially to conceal the role played by Sparta in the removal of the Athenian tyranny. Cleisthenes notably commissioned the famous statues of the Tyrannicides.
Michael Joseph Sandel is an American political philosopher and the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Government at Harvard University, where his course Justice was the university's first course to be made freely available online and on television. It has been viewed by tens of millions of people around the world, including in China, where Sandel was named the 2011's "most influential foreign figure of the year". He is also known for his critique of John Rawls' A Theory of Justice in his first book, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (1982). He was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2002.
The Monarchomachs were originally French Huguenot theorists who opposed monarchy at the end of the 16th century, known in particular for having theoretically justified tyrannicide. The term was originally a pejorative word coined in 1600 by the Scottish royalist and Catholic William Barclay (1548–1608) from the Greek μόναρχος and μάχομαι, meaning "those who fight against monarchs" or "anti-monarchists".
Two Treatises of Government is a work of political philosophy published anonymously in 1689 by John Locke. The First Treatise attacks patriarchalism in the form of sentence-by-sentence refutation of Robert Filmer's Patriarcha, while the Second Treatise outlines Locke's ideas for a more civilized society based on natural rights and contract theory. The book is a key foundational text in the theory of liberalism.
Ted Honderich is a Canadian-born British professor of philosophy, who was Grote Professor Emeritus of the Philosophy of Mind and Logic, University College London.
The Republic is a Socratic dialogue, authored by Plato around 375 BC, concerning justice, the order and character of the just city-state, and the just man. It is Plato's best-known work, and one of the world's most influential works of philosophy and political theory, both intellectually and historically.
In political philosophy, the right of revolution is the right or duty of a people to "alter or abolish" a government that acts against their common interests or threatens the safety of the people without justifiable cause. Stated throughout history in one form or another, the belief in this right has been used to justify various revolutions, including the American Revolution, French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and the Iranian Revolution.
The Kairos Document (KD) is a theological statement issued in 1985 by a group of mainly black South African theologians based predominantly in the townships of Soweto, South Africa. The document challenged the churches' response to what the authors saw as the vicious policies of the apartheid regime under the state of emergency declared on 21 July 1985. The KD evoked strong reactions and furious debates not only in South Africa, but world-wide.
Policraticus or Polycraticus is a work by John of Salisbury, written around 1159. Sometimes called the first complete medieval work of political theory, it belongs, at least in part, to the genre of advice literature addressed to rulers known as "mirrors for princes", but also breaks from that genre by offering advice to courtiers and bureaucrats. Though it takes up a wide variety of ethical questions, it is most famous for attempting to define the responsibilities of kings and their relationship to their subjects.
The Magdeburg Confession was a Lutheran statement of faith. It was written by nine pastors of the city of Magdeburg in 1550 in response to the Augsburg Interim and the imposition of Roman Catholicism. The Confession explains why the leaders of the city refused to obey the imperial law, and were prepared to resist its implementation with force if necessary. The Magdeburg Confession calls for resistance to political tyranny, and argues that the "subordinate powers" in a state, faced with the situation where the "supreme power" is working to destroy true religion, may go further than non-cooperation with the supreme power and assist the faithful to resist.
The right to resist has been put forward as a human right, although its scope and content are controversial. The right to resist, depending on how it is defined, can take the form of civil disobedience or armed resistance against a tyrannical government or foreign occupation; whether it also extends to non-tyrannical governments is disputed. Although Hersch Lauterpacht, one of the most distinguished jurists, called the right to resist the supreme human right, this right's position in international human rights law is tenuous and rarely discussed. Forty-two countries explicitly recognize a constitutional right to resist, as does the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
References
↑ Jaucourt, Louis, chevalier de. "Tyrannicide." The Encyclopedia of Diderot & d'Alembert Collaborative Translation Project. Translated by Thomas Zemanek. Ann Arbor: Michigan Publishing, University of Michigan Library, 2009. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.did2222.0001.682. Originally published as "Tyrannicide" in the Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers, 16:785 (Paris, 1765).
↑ Fine, Jonathan (2010). "Political and Philological Origins of the Term 'Terrorism' from the Ancient Near East to Our Times". Middle Eastern Studies. 46 (2): 271–288. doi:10.1080/00263201003619927. JSTOR20720662. S2CID143268246.
↑ Nederman, Cary J. (1988), "A Duty to Kill: John of Salisbury's Theory of Tyrannicide", The Review of Politics, 50 (3), Cambridge University Press: 365–389, doi:10.1017/S0034670500036305, S2CID145277381
↑ Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, trans. J.G. Dawson (Oxford, 1959), 44, 2 in O’Donovan, pp. 329–330.
↑ Rollo-Koster, Joëlle. "The Great Western Schism, Legitimacy, and Tyrannicide: The Murder of Louis of Orléans (1407)". Inventing Modernity in Medieval European Thought, ca. 1100–ca. 1550, edited by Cary J. Nedermann and Bettina Koch, Berlin, Boston: Medieval Institute Publications, 2019, pp. 193-212. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781580443500-012
↑ Provvidente, S. (2019). Stylus theologicus et iuridicus: la causa Jean Petit à Constance (1414-1418) et les débats sur le tyrannicide. Médiévales, 77, 129-151. https://doi.org/10.4000/medievales.10527
↑ Walzer, Michael. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. Basic Books, 2006.
↑ Bellamy, Alex J. Just Wars: From Cicero to Iraq. Polity Press, 2006.
↑ George, David (1988). "Distinguishing Classical Tyrannicide from Modern Terrorism". The Review of Politics. 50 (3). Cambridge University Press: 390–419. doi:10.1017/S0034670500036317. S2CID146523905.
↑ Coady, C. A. J. (2008). Morality and Political Violence. Cambridge University Press.
↑ O'Donoghue, Aoife. On Tyranny and the Global Legal Order. Cambridge University Press, 2021.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
