Even if they do say this in their moments of weakness, I find there’s usually something to back that up, something to justify it. Most people (let alone oppressive despots), when they admit to themselves (or to others) that they have no other motives in their actions but selfish ones, usually do so with one or another excuse along the lines of: We live in a dog-eat-dog world, so why should I go out of my way to be the altruistic one? Or: survival of the fittest, might is right–therefore there’s nothing wrong with being ruthless in striving to be at the top. Or: Morality isn’t real anyway, not in any objective sense–therefore, amoralism is correct, and it doesn’t matter whether or not I do the “right” thing. Might as well do what I want.
I’ve never heard anyone admit to their own selfish motives without some kind of justification like this behind it. So even though on the surface this may look dismal, it gives me hope: it tells me that no one really wants to act in a selfish or immoral manner without some kind of justification (which, in a sense, is morality in disguise). True heartless cold evil would not feel the need for any such justification.
A tyrant simply needs an army big enough to terrorize the people.
This is true, but I have an image (perhaps erroneously) of early groups of human beings living in harmony with each other. I don’t doubt early human tribes had a leader, or group of leaders, but I don’t imagine this leader being ruthless and abusive. I imagine him (or her) filling a position in the group that was needed and desired by the majority–that is to say that the majority of people in the tribe wanted that leader, that they saw value in keeping him/her in that position of leadership, and that if it was really that horrible living under such a brute, it wouldn’t take much or long to overthrow him. I think it depends a lot on proximity–the proximity of the subjects to the leader.
It’s like a family in a sense–this is the main difference between tribal life and life in modern civilization–when you have a small community of people, you regard your fellow neighbor or group member as like a part of the family (distant family, I suppose). Everyone knows each other. There is no such thing as a “stranger”. Therefore, you usually wouldn’t get one guy, or groups of guys, acting as bullies subjecting everyone into submission. It would be too “awkward” to say the least. This is the only word that comes to mind, but I think it hits the point: it isn’t awkward for modern day tyrants to be tyrants simply because of the very nature of large scale civilizations–he (or she?) really doesn’t ever need to come face to face with the people (I mean, they do obviously, but it’s usually in a very formal and controlled manner–like giving a speach from a podium–not exactly personal). So the awkwardness just isn’t there, and therefore maybe not even the guilt.
Anyway, my point is that even if tyranny does preceed modern human beings, I believe there was a lengthy period during which this must have been the exception rather than the rule that it seems to be today.
Does this completely overthrow everything I said to Moreno above?
Can we all agree to use “despot”? Works for me and SG’s probably right.