[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.

[parthianshotgun]

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.

[s1artibartfast]

Ive read Sapolsky and listened to his Stanford Coursework. I think he has a lot that it interesting to say, but there are some areas where I disagree and even he admits there are weaknesses to his position. Im not arguing against change, reform, or anything else.

>What I'm saying is that a kings conduct to do governance doesn't tell me about their character as a human.

This is where I disagree. If a king needlessly tortures and rejoices in suffereing, that tells yuo about their character as a human. The governance of Sauron or Jofferry tells you about their moral character.

>So to say that it's an entirely level playing field isn't fair to social conditions and identity.

This is where you lose me? Who said anything about a level playing field? IF you reread my last post, I said different people can find it more or less difficult to be moral. I see no problem with the idea that is more difficult to be both a king and a moral person, than a peasant and moral person. Just like some jobs are more physically strenuous, some are more morally challenging.

Back to reality, this is obviously the case. Different people are faced with different life challenges, and moral challenges. The playing field is not level.

It is easy for me not to beat innocent people. I do it without thinking and it takes zero effort. Take someone raised in an physically abusive household and this might not be so easy for them. The difference in challenge does not mean you can be moral while going around and beating innocent people.

Im fine with the idea that being a moral king, or a moral politician is a hard task. I dont think that it being hard means the bar for morality is lowered.

The same goes for corruption, which is where we started.

>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.

I dont think power corrupting is relevant to judging if a king/politician/murderer is a moral person.