[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?

[parthianshotgun]

where did I say circumstances excuse bad behaviour? Morality exists I agree, and personally yes, I don't think there's a transfiguration of what morality is based entirely on circumstance. One wouldn't affect the other, and moral relativism is often just a way to do terrible things. Let's assume morality is a fixed line.

However, no matter how moral a person is, they are never perfect and they faulter. Judging a person independent of this human condition isn't fruitful, the point a person is at can shift on that fixed line. Murderers can reform and Kings can become murderers.

So we need to be vigilant of circumstances that allow for people to lean in to that corruption. A moral king isn't necessarily going to be moral forever. And unless we have purity checks, we really can't select the morals from the immorals when it comes to matters such as this. Doing so would also be pretty presumptuous too.

Now I may be misinterpreting you. And if so please correct me, maybe we actually agree (and I'm beginning to suspect we truly might) and this is just the nature of async back and forths. If so, apologies in advance.