Assassination of politicians: Would it be moral?

[Ceannairceach]

22 People think its ok to kill a dictator. WTF? Just because he wasnt elected he can be killed morally for no reason?

If the dictator is legally in power, serving the nation's people as a whole and is not oppressive in a manner that makes life in the nation unbearable, then assassination is indeed wrong.

[Ceannairceach]

Even when that sovereign is no longer serving the best interest of the entity, to the point of outright harming it and/or its subjects?

I find their betrayal of the sovereign disgusting. It is traitorous, treachery, and it need to be punished by death. It's treason, so yes.

Considering the fact that a sovereign draws his power from the consent of those he or she rules, I find the idea that it is treason to denounce and dethrone the sovereign to be, quite frankly, idiotic, if the sovereign has already committed treason against those he has promised to protect and serve.

[Virana]

Even when that sovereign is no longer serving the best interest of the entity, to the point of outright harming it and/or its subjects?

I find their betrayal of the sovereign disgusting. It is traitorous, treachery, and it need to be punished by death. It's treason, so yes.

If that sovereign isn't representing the interests of his nation and only supporting his own wealth and power rather than that of the people, then it shouldn't be treason to try to overthrow them. By making that statement you're undermining countless thousands of revolutions in world history and calling them all traitors that should be executed.

And there's a lot of those.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

22 People think its ok to kill a dictator. WTF? Just because he wasnt elected he can be killed morally for no reason?

If that dictator's oppressing 22 million people, and the 22 that think it's okay are supported by that 22 million, then by all means, yes.

What if the people like him? Should he be killed because he wasnt elected?

[Abatael]

I find their betrayal of the sovereign disgusting. It is traitorous, treachery, and it need to be punished by death. It's treason, so yes.

Considering the fact that a sovereign draws his power from the consent of those he or she rules, I find the idea that it is treason to denounce and dethrone the sovereign to be, quite frankly, idiotic, if the sovereign has already committed treason against those he has promised to protect and serve.

Leaders derive their power from the people, if it is a democracy.

[Ceannairceach]

Considering the fact that a sovereign draws his power from the consent of those he or she rules, I find the idea that it is treason to denounce and dethrone the sovereign to be, quite frankly, idiotic, if the sovereign has already committed treason against those he has promised to protect and serve.

Leaders derive their power from the people, if it is a democracy.

No, only if the leader is voted upon is it a democratic institution. Even autocrats require the consent of the governed if they wish to remain in power. Source: Tsarist Russia, Monarchist France, The United States of America, etc.

[Virana]

Considering the fact that a sovereign draws his power from the consent of those he or she rules, I find the idea that it is treason to denounce and dethrone the sovereign to be, quite frankly, idiotic, if the sovereign has already committed treason against those he has promised to protect and serve.

Leaders derive their power from the people, if it is a democracy.

It's not usually a democracy though. And most democratic institutions in the world aren't actually very democratic anyway.

Leaders derive their power from the people, if it is a democracy.

No, only if the leader is voted upon is it a democratic institution. Even autocrats require the consent of the governed if they wish to remain in power. Source: Tsarist Russia, Monarchist France, The United States of America, etc.

U.S. isn't exactly an autocracy. Read what you wrote again.

[Ceannairceach]

If that dictator's oppressing 22 million people, and the 22 that think it's okay are supported by that 22 million, then by all means, yes.

What if the people like him? Should he be killed because he wasnt elected?

I don't think anyone here is suggesting we kill the Queen.

[Virana]

What if the people like him? Should he be killed because he wasnt elected?

I don't think anyone here is suggesting we kill the Queen.

The Queen of England is a symbolic head of state. She, under the documents collectively considered the British Constitution, has no power to oppress her people. You're really ignoring the context of everything.

[CTALNH]

Morality doesn't exist!

Yes it does. It's just not objective.

No it doesn't!

[Abatael]

I find their betrayal of the sovereign disgusting. It is traitorous, treachery, and it need to be punished by death. It's treason, so yes.

If that sovereign isn't representing the interests of his nation and only supporting his own wealth and power rather than that of the people, then it shouldn't be treason to try to overthrow them. By making that statement you're undermining countless thousands of revolutions in world history and calling them all traitors that should be executed.

And there's a lot of those.

Regardless, it is still treason.

I don't support rebellions, mutiny, insubordination, coup d'état. They are illegal.

Now, a revolution is a complete change from one constitution to another, which does entail a change in government, but is not necessarily treason.

[Nidaria]

Morality doesn't exist!

People like you are the reason why the world is in such bad shape....

[Ceannairceach]

I don't think anyone here is suggesting we kill the Queen.

The Queen of England is a symbolic head of state. She, under the documents collectively considered the British Constitution, has no power to oppress her people. You're really ignoring the context of everything.

Not really. She is an unelected head of state, possessing powers of a head of state if restricted in use. And no one is advocating her death. So I assume that people are perfectly fine with legal heads-of-state or -government, so long as they are good folk.

[Lloyd egghead]

22 People think its ok to kill a dictator. WTF? Just because he wasnt elected he can be killed morally for no reason?

If the dictator is legally in power, serving the nation's people as a whole and is not oppressive in a manner that makes life in the nation unbearable, then assassination is indeed wrong.

[Abatael]

Leaders derive their power from the people, if it is a democracy.

No, only if the leader is voted upon is it a democratic institution. Even autocrats require the consent of the governed if they wish to remain in power. Source: Tsarist Russia, Monarchist France, The United States of America, etc.

Democracy does not require voting. It is simply a form of government that gives equal say to eligible citizens, and not necessarily all citizens. It is government by the people; not for the people.

An autocracy is not by the people. It is by whoever has the most power usually. Oligarchy is by a group of people.

If you have the most power, then you don't need the consent of the people. (And, when I say "most power," that would mean you have more power than the people.)

[CTALNH]

Morality doesn't exist!

People like you are the reason why the world is in such bad shape....

Too bad...For you

[Ceannairceach]

No, only if the leader is voted upon is it a democratic institution. Even autocrats require the consent of the governed if they wish to remain in power. Source: Tsarist Russia, Monarchist France, The United States of America, etc.

Democracy does not require voting. It is simply a form of government that gives equal say to eligible citizens, and not necessarily all citizens. It is government by the people; not for the people.

An autocracy is not by the people. It is by whoever has the most power usually. Oligarchy is by a group of people.

If you have the most power, then you don't need the consent of the people. (And, when I say "most power," that would mean you have more power than the people.)

And where does this power derive from, if not from people, ignoring your spiel about government forms that is, quite frankly, not pertinent to the topic at hand? Autocrats still require people to rule in order to be a ruler, and noting the fact that without their consent, even if virtual and not asked for, he would not be a ruler, the social contract theory holds up, even in such autocratic states.

[Abatael]

Democracy does not require voting. It is simply a form of government that gives equal say to eligible citizens, and not necessarily all citizens. It is government by the people; not for the people.

An autocracy is not by the people. It is by whoever has the most power usually. Oligarchy is by a group of people.

If you have the most power, then you don't need the consent of the people. (And, when I say "most power," that would mean you have more power than the people.)

And where does this power derive from, if not from people, ignoring your spiel about government forms that is, quite frankly, not pertinent to the topic at hand? Autocrats still require people to rule in order to be a ruler, and noting the fact that without their consent, even if virtual and not asked for, he would not be a ruler, the social contract theory holds up, even in such autocratic states.

The can derive their power from the military, a foreign state, or money; it really doesn't matter.

As I said, if you have more power than the people, you don't need their consent.

And, you invoke this theory of the social contract, but, because you did, you should all ready know that the social contract is not applicable with power overruling its stipulations essentially vacating the contract.

[Ragnarum]

Yes, It would be. Even if they were elected.

[Ifreann]

I do not have a problem with the assassination itself, and I don't really care about that, but I believe, if a subject turns against his sovereign, it is the worst form of betrayal, and the subjects that planned, and executed the assassination must be put to death. Now, if a foreign nation planned, and executed the assassination, then it is morally acceptable.

If I were the general of Nation A, and Nation A was at war with Nation B, and the subjects of the sovereign of Nation B betrayed him, and assassinated him, I would have the subjects that did that -- the ones that, in a way, assisted my campaign -- executed, because I do not believe any subject, no matter what, should betray their sovereign.

Pretty mad way of thinking. It's not like living in a country involves promising to support the leader of the country forever.

---

Yes it does. It's just not objective.

No it doesn't!

Explain how people have moral positions if morality doesn't exist.

[Abatael]

I do not have a problem with the assassination itself, and I don't really care about that, but I believe, if a subject turns against his sovereign, it is the worst form of betrayal, and the subjects that planned, and executed the assassination must be put to death. Now, if a foreign nation planned, and executed the assassination, then it is morally acceptable.

If I were the general of Nation A, and Nation A was at war with Nation B, and the subjects of the sovereign of Nation B betrayed him, and assassinated him, I would have the subjects that did that -- the ones that, in a way, assisted my campaign -- executed, because I do not believe any subject, no matter what, should betray their sovereign.

Pretty mad way of thinking. It's not like living in a country involves promising to support the leader of the country forever.

Citizenship generally requires that. I cannot think of a country that would not require that of their citizens.

[CTALNH]

I do not have a problem with the assassination itself, and I don't really care about that, but I believe, if a subject turns against his sovereign, it is the worst form of betrayal, and the subjects that planned, and executed the assassination must be put to death. Now, if a foreign nation planned, and executed the assassination, then it is morally acceptable.

If I were the general of Nation A, and Nation A was at war with Nation B, and the subjects of the sovereign of Nation B betrayed him, and assassinated him, I would have the subjects that did that -- the ones that, in a way, assisted my campaign -- executed, because I do not believe any subject, no matter what, should betray their sovereign.

Pretty mad way of thinking. It's not like living in a country involves promising to support the leader of the country forever.

---

No it doesn't!

Explain how people have moral positions if morality doesn't exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

[Ceannairceach]

And where does this power derive from, if not from people, ignoring your spiel about government forms that is, quite frankly, not pertinent to the topic at hand? Autocrats still require people to rule in order to be a ruler, and noting the fact that without their consent, even if virtual and not asked for, he would not be a ruler, the social contract theory holds up, even in such autocratic states.

The can derive their power from the military, a foreign state, or money; it really doesn't matter.

As I said, if you have more power than the people, you don't need their consent.

And, you invoke this theory of the social contract, but, because you did, you should all ready know that the social contract is not applicable with power overruling its stipulations essentially vacating the contract.

The military are armed people, the foreign state derives its power from people, and money only has a value that people give it.

That power comes from the amount and the strength of the people that support you.

Except that it doesn't. Social contract theory exists regardless of the knowledge of the contract, and the second that the people refuse to see the ruler as their sovereign he loses his power. Considering the fact that the social contract theory was made originally to be applied to monarchies both absolute and constitutional, whether or not the ruler is the most powerful person does not void the fact that this power is derived from the ruled.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Yes it does. It's just not objective.

No it doesn't!

Your position is idiotic.

I suppose it rests on the premise that morality is a social construct, hence it doesn't exist?

Plenty of things are socially constructed: Laws, States, religious and cultural identities; yet they are very real.

So is morality.

As Ifreann said, it just isn't objective.

[Ceannairceach]

Pretty mad way of thinking. It's not like living in a country involves promising to support the leader of the country forever.

---

Explain how people have moral positions if morality doesn't exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

That supports his point, buddy.