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.
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.
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.
Maybe we're getting lost in the weeds. I'm not arguing for determinism, though Robert Sapolsky certainly is if you're keen on learning more. Also my perspective doesn't justify or make a murderer moral, it just leaves room for change. I think it's fruitful to assume we're both arguing in good faith here yes?
Anyways, back to it. What I'm saying is that a kings conduct to do governance doesn't tell me about their character as a human. We all curate profiles and have different moral standards based on the situation (see spreadsheet example).
So to say that it's an entirely level playing field isn't fair to social conditions and identity. A kings conduct is instrumental, whereas personal conduct, if done with grace, is often not. Me helping you without any favour returned is by all accounts something humans value. A king helping a vassal state implies more than just a deontological 'good for the sake of good'. To realize that is to, I feel, realize that politics exist.
.. 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
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.
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.