Philosophy Now Forum

Is it good to slay the tyrant? Or, must one obey the positive law? A middle case is given, and was apparently a commonplace in Dostoevsky's day, whereby it is asked, if it were seriously demonstrated to you that a plot were underway with such intentions (as to kill the Tsar) would you intervene by alerting the authorities?

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 11:49 pm Is it good to slay the tyrant? Or, must one obey the positive law? A middle case is given, and was apparently a commonplace in Dostoevsky's day, whereby it is asked, if it were seriously demonstrated to you that a plot were underway with such intentions (as to kill the Tsar) would you intervene by alerting the authorities?

I'll just use a legal argument; if you're talking about in the context of a war, then killing during wartime is not legally considered murder, whatever other moral ramifications one wishes to add or include.

IvoryBlackBishop wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2020 10:53 pm

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 11:49 pm Is it good to slay the tyrant? Or, must one obey the positive law? A middle case is given, and was apparently a commonplace in Dostoevsky's day, whereby it is asked, if it were seriously demonstrated to you that a plot were underway with such intentions (as to kill the Tsar) would you intervene by alerting the authorities?

I'll just use a legal argument; if you're talking about in the context of a war, then killing during wartime is not legally considered murder, whatever other moral ramifications one wishes to add or include.

IvoryBlackBishop wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2020 10:53 pm

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 11:49 pm Is it good to slay the tyrant? Or, must one obey the positive law? A middle case is given, and was apparently a commonplace in Dostoevsky's day, whereby it is asked, if it were seriously demonstrated to you that a plot were underway with such intentions (as to kill the Tsar) would you intervene by alerting the authorities?

I'll just use a legal argument; if you're talking about in the context of a war, then killing during wartime is not legally considered murder, whatever other moral ramifications one wishes to add or include.

The legal issue most proxomite is under what conditions revolution is moarlly permitted. Kant said, for instance, " talk all you want but obey." But, this conceals the bitter difficulty that open speech even if not legally sedtious or treasonous due to unlimited liberalism or free speech would be heard and spoil the plot.

Hobbes speaks of the individual right to determine the conditions of tyryny or self preservation's invasion. Locke of a collective.

The issue of war is replaced by that of exception. The state of exception is tacitly totalized due to the Nuremberg type situation these Political Philosophers or Law Maker's Art thinkers dealt with.

Schmitt. Agamben. And then Post-hobbesian questions are suggested.

Also, everything in the other thread. Heart Fuller and so on.