Paper on Justification for Oppressive Rule

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Hey everyone! As a research paper connecting to the play Julius Caesar by Shakespeare, I'm going to be writing a paper on the historical rationale, both common and highly philosophical, for oppressive/tyrannical rule. I'm looking for philosophers, common logic- sort of the same stuff that justifies hierarchy of any type. I know that the combined knowledge on this forum in regards to that topic is enormous, so I figured I'd ask.

If anyone knows any books, philosophers, famous logical arguments, etc. on this topic, let me know! Thanks.

[ComradeOm]

While exact names and references escape me at the moment, one obvious example would be the early Church's relations with the state. Most importantly, the way that Christian doctrine was used to enshrine the role of the Emperor as God's representative on Earth. This was a significant departure from SPQR and effectively led to Christianity becoming the state religion of the late Roman Empire

This obsession with state authority continued after the fall of Rome. Most notably, in the West Augustine of Hippo and others attempted to reconcile nominally pacifist Christian theology with the need to support a violent warrior caste ('just war', which ultimately led to 'penitential war'). Similar concerns plagued the Papal States right up to its demise. The Edgardo Mortara Affair illustrates on an individual scale the degree to which Catholic theology could be employed to support barbarism

Again, apologies for the vagueness of all this; I'm away from my reference books at the moment. If you've any specific questions I'll do some digging for names and concepts

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

While exact names and references escape me at the moment, one obvious example would be the early Church's relations with the state. Most importantly, the way that Christian doctrine was used to enshrine the role of the Emperor as God's representative on Earth. This was a significant departure from SPQR and effectively led to Christianity becoming the state religion of the late Roman Empire

This obsession with state authority continued after the fall of Rome. Most notably, in the West Augustine of Hippo and others attempted to reconcile nominally pacifist Christian theology with the need to support a violent warrior caste ('just war', which ultimately led to 'penitential war'). Similar concerns plagued the Papal States right up to its demise. The Edgardo Mortara Affair illustrates on an individual scale the degree to which Catholic theology could be employed to support barbarism

Again, apologies for the vagueness of all this; I'm away from my reference books at the moment. If you've any specific questions I'll do some digging for names and concepts

No, that's great! Thank you

[bailey_187]

Merleau-Ponty's Humanism and Terror is about justification for Soviet oppression under Stalin.

Slavoj Zizek's In Defense of Lost Causes defends the use of political violence

Also there is a book which compiles Robespierre's writings and justification for the "Reign of Terror", along with an introduction from Zizek. The book is printed by Verso press in their Revolutions series

[MarxSchmarx]

Well there's always Plato's argument for a "noble lie" that keeps the community together. Sometimes the (innately superior) rulers have to lie to keep the (innately inferior) hoi poloi to follow social convention and mores that go against their selfish instincts. Aristotle has a surprisingly similar line when he talks about natural "slaves" and natural "rulers", the latter of which rule the former in the interest of attaining the greatest good for all. This ideology actually justified much of modern slavery, when for example many new world slave owners justified slavery by commenting on how their "Christianization" of Africans ultimately was good for the Africans themselves - and of course this same ideology carried over into imperialist rule.

I think as far as logical arguments go, there is always the "justified authority" argument. For example, a parent pulling a 4 year old that runs into busy traffic forcibly by the arm back to the sidewalk is supposedly an example of "justified authority" even though it is in some sense a "tyrannical act". Whether you will have sufficient space to explore this problem is another question, but I think tyranny and the like have always been based on an attempt to justify their authority. The radical solution has always been to assert that no authority is really justifiable among equals - but that it is only because there is an assumption about the inherent inequality of peoples (a contradiction with most liberal values) that authority somehow manages to justify itself.