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.
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.