[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.

[parthianshotgun]

I should have added a necessary 'necessarily' to my assertion lol. Power corrupting gives you a template or heuristic to base some assumptions from. There are obviously exceptions, but we know that it's prudent to be skeptical of those in power. Not because of any tabula rasa 'take them for what they are' but because we have a countless examples of power being a corrupting force. And I don't think I've said anything about beating people up being moral. Could you explain where you may have gotten that impression?

[s1artibartfast]

My original assertion was that being a moral person is not orthogonal to being a moral king. I added that how a king rules is a huge factor in their moral standing as a human.

You asked: "So do you think then that power doesn't corrupt?"

My response was that power corrupting is irrelevant to judging if a person in power is corrupt or not. I dont think that additional challenge lowers the bar for morality.

You brought up the Mansons, social expectations, ect as examples of mitigations to consider in moral judgement.

I have doubled down on the idea that the moral standing of a human should be based on their actions, not on their circumstantial considerations or mitigations.

[parthianshotgun]

The law does have mitigations though, like if someone has suffered severe trauma or was in an otherwise uncontrollable position that led them to make so and so actions. Same reason why children aren't morally culpable for certain things, even murder.

Doubling down is collapsing the moral landscape down to a hard and fast rules. We make moral decisions from circumstances, there are countless examples of this in psych research, like the Stanford Prison Experiment.

Now. Is that right? Is that fair? Probably not. I'd want my rulers to be good people and leave it at that, but the allure of power, the wanting of it, leads to corruption or at least gives us some indication that that abuse is possible and that we should be vigilant.

[s1artibartfast]

I think the law is not the same thing as morality.

I fully understand that we make moral decisions based on circumstances. You brought up Sapolsky, who is basically a determinist, and I agree with him on the science.

What I am rejecting is the moral relativism. As more is understood about psychology and biochemistry, some people seem inclined to change the expectation for moral behavior based on these factors. Some people would be inclined to give the punishers a pass in the prison experiment because power corrupts. This is where I disagree.

"everyone was doing it" doesn't make bad behavior good, nor does the complex biochemistry around missing breakfast.

>Now. Is that right? Is that fair? Probably not.

Im not sure what this is in reference to. I think fairness has very little to do with moral judgement. Its not fair if someone was born in circumstances that turn them into a murderer, but someone else's circumstance lead them to a life of charity. This unfairness in circumstance does not make the murderer a moral person.

Circumstance can create immoral people and circumstances are unfair.

>the allure of power, the wanting of it, leads to corruption or at least gives us some indication that that abuse is possible and that we should be vigilant.

If you think circumstance excuses bad behavior, why be vigilant?