8

Is there a perfect antonym for the word "Tyranny", meaning the two words could be used in the same place in a sentence and always function correctly, but have opposite meanings...

i.e. The King ruled with tyranny. The King ruled with...

Improve this question
2
  • 4
    I think the correct word is Justice.
    – patrick
    May 25, 2011 at 14:17
  • 1
    Justice sounds right in this context, but then the best choice for antonym of Justice isn't Tyranny. it would be Injustice of Unfairness.
    – Mitch
    May 25, 2011 at 19:15

7 Answers 7

Reset to default
7

Depends what you are looking for. If you were meaning the type of rule the king had, the antonym would be something having to do with democracy, like:

egalitarianism

However, if you are asking about the harshness of the king's rule, then you would probably use:

clemency

Improve this answer
4
  • Ah thank you, egalitarianism is what I was looking for. I needed a word which could be juxtaposed with Tyranny to make a title for a paper. "Tyranny and Egalitarianism" works nicely.
    – Ryan Stull
    May 25, 2011 at 3:36
  • 1
    Idiot: I'd say an egalitarian king is by definition an oxymoron.
    – FumbleFingers
    May 25, 2011 at 14:25
  • 2
    @FumbleFingers, @Third Idiot, although egalitarian king is an oxymoron, I could imagine a tyrannically egalitarian government. I can even think of at least one historical example.
    – senderle
    May 25, 2011 at 15:56
  • Egalitarian is the belief in equality of all people. No king would be egalitarian. He would be like common?
    – Thursagen
    May 25, 2011 at 21:22
9

benevolence (from thefreedictionary)

benevolent - intending or showing kindness; "a benevolent society"

Improve this answer
2
  • 1
    Since benevolent dictatorship is a well-establish phrase, I would say benevolence is the right adjective here.
    – Peter Shor
    May 25, 2011 at 12:29
  • @Peter Shor: That was my thinking, and I probably should have said so in the answer. Thanks for filling the gap.
    – FumbleFingers
    May 25, 2011 at 14:22
2

Benevolence is nice (in more ways than one!) but I'm not sure it's exactly the opposite of tyranny, which has to do with (a) the scope of the tyrant's power (i.e. absolute) and (b) the tyrant's use and abuse of that power. So while a tyrant is unlikely to be benevolent, I don't feel that benevolence and tyranny are quite opposites.

What about latitude, in the sense of freedom from narrow restrictions?

Improve this answer
2

I would say the opposite of tyrrany is anarchy -- no government at all.

Improve this answer
3
  • But you can't actually rule "with anarchy".
    – FumbleFingers
    May 25, 2011 at 14:30
  • Indeed. Anarchy is a complete and utter failure to rule.
    – Ernest Friedman-Hill
    May 25, 2011 at 14:34
  • 1
    I always think of it from the other side. Anarchy is the complete and utter refusal to be ruled.
    – FumbleFingers
    May 25, 2011 at 16:05
1

Benevolence?

Less commonly, grace? (as in "Would it please Your Grace...?")

Once upon a time, it was considered a good thing if royalty displayed condescension, but that word has almost exclusively negative connotations now.

Improve this answer
1

try laissez faire

  –noun

1. An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws.

  1. Noninterference in the affairs of others.
Improve this answer
8
  • 1
    @pageman: You can have a laissez faire attitude or policy - but you can't rule with it, or with any derivative word-forms I know of.
    – FumbleFingers
    May 25, 2011 at 14:36
  • @Fumble check the example in Wodnik: 3.(economics, politics) Practicing or representing governmental noninterference, or minimal interference, especially in economic affairs; pertaining to free-market capitalism. I think the city should take a laissez faire approach to this; getting involved would only make things worse. Libertarian/Soft Paternalism might be related to this (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_paternalism)
    – Paul Amerigo Pajo
    May 27, 2011 at 5:15
  • 1
    @pageman: Like I said, a government can adopt a laissez faire policy in some particular area. I just don't see you can characterise the entire 'rule' as laissez faire in OP's context.
    – FumbleFingers
    May 27, 2011 at 22:52
  • 1
    @pageman: On reflection, yes of course you can. My criticism was at the very least excessive. In some ways laissez-faire doesn't sit well with rule, but they aren't at all mutually exclusive.
    – FumbleFingers
    May 28, 2011 at 19:46
  • 1
    @pageman: Now you've made me think about it, I will upvote yours. Usually I only vote for the one best answer, but in this case obviously I rate my own benevolence top. I really can't buy into latitude, so you can take the silver medal!
    – FumbleFingers
    May 29, 2011 at 12:34
0

Democracy. Check here.

Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.