[buvanshak]

In other words, a fool might end up doing more harm than a really cruel person. Of course.

> But an idealist who holds their ideal or political theory with the force of a religion is far worse, because they commit their horrors in the name of doing good, and so their benevolent impulses seem to them to be temptations - something to be resisted in order to do what is "good".

We are talking about a benevolent dictator here. If you are saying that they ll resist their benevolent impulses, how are they a benevolent dictator in the first place?

[AnimalMuppet]

"Benevolent" = "wanting to do good". But that applied (I think) even to the Communists. They wanted to free the proletariat from oppression. That was their moral imperative. To do it, they were willing to execute their "oppressors". The temptation to have mercy on some of the oppressors rather than execute them had to be resisted, because it would hinder the cause.

[Edit: reworded for clarity.]

[buvanshak]

So by that definition, should an ideal dictator stand by and watch if there is an invasion? Because resisting it would be likely be killing the invaders?

So I think there is always an Idea of the subset of people you are meant to serve, and their well being being your highest priority. In your example, the "proletariat" were that subset, so it is only their duty to protect them from oppression.

[AnimalMuppet]

Sure. But in protecting the proletariat from oppression, they "protected" a fair number of the proletariat right into the grave.

[buvanshak]

> they "protected" a fair number of the proletariat right into the grave.

If that is so, how they are benevolent in the first place, or "wanting to do good" as you say?