Arbitrary rules enforced with threats of violence is not an optimal outcome for me. If you have an option other than

a) subjective laissez faire where serial killers are allowed to do their own thing

or

b) Tyranny

I'd be glad to hear it. I know I have.

Assuming you're generalized that properly and aren't seriously arguing the most egregious false dichotomy I've seen in weeks, I'm afraid that condemning the set of ethics based on social or personal consequences as "tyranny" amounts to dismissing an entire school of thought on aesthetic grounds. Forgive me if I don't find such a thing particularly convincing.