| 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. |