[s1artibartfast]

I don't think that is true for Tolkien, fantasy, or life.

If someone is a king, being a good person is synonymous with being a good king. Same with being a good loyal knight, ect.

There is no need to separate the individual and social role.

You have a moral archetype of for each social role, and judge the morality of the people in those roles against it.

[mikrl]

The leader who took Russia from being a grand-principality centred on Moscow to a continent spanning empire was Ivan the Terrible.

You don’t get an epithet like that by being a nice fella.

[PeterisP]

But Ivan the Terrible simply wasn't a good king - taking Russia from being a grand-principality centred on Moscow to a continent spanning empire is a major change in the world that we have to note in history, but it doesn't make someone a good king, neither his contemporary nobles nor his contemporary peasants nor the conquered peoples really benefited from that.

There's a difference between good and great, having a major impact doesn't imply that the impact is good. Alexander the Great is another example of someone who had an outstanding impact, but was not a good king.

[s1artibartfast]

I dont think that refutes the point I was making.

Was Ivan a moral ruler? Can his morality as a ruler be separated from Ivan's morality a person?

The point Im trying to make is that that making dual and parallel judgments is a choice, and I think many people dont hold this distinction.

I think the more common view is that how a king rules is a huge factor in their moral standing as a human.

[parthianshotgun]

So do you think then that power doesn't corrupt?

[s1artibartfast]

Seems irrelevant. If someone is corrupted and does amoral things, the result is still an amoral person.

Sauron is not moral but corrupted. They were corrupted, and thus became amoral.

[parthianshotgun]

I feel that it's a fairly notable distinction. See the Manson trials. An individual exerting will to 'corrupt' someone helpless is markedly different than someone, through mostly their own free will, doing something terrible. Abstractly then, the thing doing the corrupting need not be a will, but can be systems too. And you might make the case that nearly everything is this way, to which I'd say..yes. Social roles and conditions can corrupt or twist our moral precepts. You wouldn't steal from someone outright, but put it behind a spreadsheet and slap some tech jargon and suddenly the prospect is tempting.

[s1artibartfast]

I don't think that's really useful or coherent perspective. If you approach things from a causal or deterministic mindset, then everything and everyone is morally inscrutable. Furthermore, if you take that approach, it doesn't mean that people are moral, just that they are not responsible for their actions.

Hitler and Jesus are on equal moral footing. They are both the products of causality, whether you hold that to be governed by physics, or the character of their Immortal soul.

Are you saying that being corrupted by your social conditions allows you to remain good while doing bad? Are you saying that it is moral to steal with a spreadsheet?

What is morality if not resisting corruption and temptation?

I think it is much more coherent to believe that one's actions determine their morality, but not all people face equal tests. This makes more sense than trying to rationalize how a murderer is a moral person.

[mistrial9]

.. carved out of a land where tribal conflict was constant and common, massacre was well known, and illiterate poachers held huge territory.. hard to imagine from an armchair in a suburb in modern times

[mikrl]

Just saying, it’s not Ivan the Great and Peter the Terrible. Both lived up to our modern expectations of autocrats, but one was more involved with what we now consider conducive to ‘greatness’ ie grand reformist ideals, science and modernization.

[naniwaduni]

Good old Johnny, terrific dude.