Most evil person ever who reformed?

[JKellyMap]

I am fascinated by GIGO and bldy’s little debate (not just because my son’s middle name is the Ashoka’s name in Tamil). It is akin to the question, were Jefferson and Washington “evil” because they owned slaves (in an era when certain others in their same culture were denouncing slavery?).

I think one way to resolve this is to see “evil” as potentially including two different things: intrinsically harmful acts, and actions made deliberately against the morals of one’s culture and era. Ashoka’s awareness attainment served to bring certain actions just a little more from being purely in the first category to being in the second category.

[Fuzzy_wuzzy]

@Emiliana

But being a soldier and a ne’er do well isn’t evil. I’d also object to Nelson Mandela’s inclusion.

(Are there illegitimate Catholic saints?)

I agree. Many of the people mentioned in this thread deserve to be nowhere near it.

[marshmallow]

Presentism is when you apply today’s morality to the past. This isn’t bad because it’s anachronistic like the moral relativists say, but because it gives an excuse to our future generations to judge us. And that ain’t cool! Hey future kids, your own future kids will be judging you too, so put that in your self righteous pipe and smoke it.

[JKellyMap]

Well put, marshmallow. This issue just came up in the endless “are you a racist?” Pit thread.

[bldysabba]

@marshmallow

Presentism is when you apply today’s morality to the past.

I have given up trying to understand GIGO’s point of view. It certainly doesn’t seem like presentism. GIGO seems to be saying Ashoka was evil based on the fact that he himself saw the folly of his ways, repented and changed, and this was unusual, and ergo, he must have been evil. But I can’t even see how that chain of thought could make sense to someone, so I must be getting him wrong. If he/she also thinks all kings in history that ever led wars of conquest against their neighbours were evil, then it would qualify as presentism, and I could at least understand it, if not agree with it.

[watchwolf49]

Saul of Tarsus

He rampaged through the Levant slaughtering any and all Christians he could find.

Then converted, and his writings after are still in print under the name Paul the Apostle.

[GIGObuster]

@bldysabba

I have given up trying to understand GIGO’s point of view. It certainly doesn’t seem like presentism. GIGO seems to be saying Ashoka was evil based on the fact that he himself saw the folly of his ways, repented and changed, and this was unusual, and ergo, he must have been evil. But I can’t even see how that chain of thought could make sense to someone, so I must be getting him wrong. If he/she also thinks all kings in history that ever led wars of conquest against their neighbours were evil, then it would qualify as presentism, and I could at least understand it, if not agree with it.

Problem is that that is not what you were going for, if you had said the last thing a while ago we could not had disagreed, it seemed that first it was only important for you to deny that there was evidence for what Ashoka did (and dissing Wikipedia for very little reason, indeed wikipedia should never be taken as the final word and only the ones who take it that way are the ones with a problem, one should also check the sources)

There was then a continued effort to apparently not see anything bad with what Ashoka did, and with what he reported for posterity that what he did was wrong, it seemed that even accepting some presentism was going to be overridden by your apparent need to be a contrarian.

Here is another source for what Ashoka said:
http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/ashoka.html#PREFACE

Indeed, Beloved-of-the-Gods is deeply pained by the killing, dying and deportation that take place when an unconquered country is conquered. But Beloved-of-the-Gods is pained even more by this – that Brahmans, ascetics, and householders of different religions who live in those countries, and who are respectful to superiors, to mother and father, to elders, and who behave properly and have strong loyalty towards friends, acquaintances, companions, relatives, servants and employees – that they are injured, killed or separated from their loved ones. Even those who are not affected (by all this) suffer when they see friends, acquaintances, companions and relatives affected. These misfortunes befall all (as a result of war), and this pains Beloved-of-the-Gods.

There is no country, except among the Greeks, where these two groups, Brahmans and ascetics, are not found, and there is no country where people are not devoted to one or another religion.[26] Therefore the killing, death or deportation of a hundredth, or even a thousandth part of those who died during the conquest of Kalinga now pains Beloved-of-the-Gods. Now Beloved-of-the-Gods thinks that even those who do wrong should be forgiven where forgiveness is possible.

Even the forest people, who live in Beloved-of-the-Gods’ domain, are entreated and reasoned with to act properly. They are told that despite his remorse Beloved-of-the-Gods has the power to punish them if necessary, so that they should be ashamed of their wrong and not be killed. Truly, Beloved-of-the-Gods desires non-injury, restraint and impartiality to all beings, even where wrong has been done.

Now it is conquest by Dhamma that Beloved-of-the-Gods considers to be the best conquest.[27] And it (conquest by Dhamma) has been won here, on the borders, even six hundred yojanas away, where the Greek king Antiochos rules, beyond there where the four kings named Ptolemy, Antigonos, Magas and Alexander rule, likewise in the south among the Cholas, the Pandyas, and as far as Tamraparni.[28] Here in the king’s domain among the Greeks, the Kambojas, the Nabhakas, the Nabhapamkits, the Bhojas, the Pitinikas, the Andhras and the Palidas, everywhere people are following Beloved-of-the-Gods’ instructions in Dhamma. Even where Beloved-of-the-Gods’ envoys have not been, these people too, having heard of the practice of Dhamma and the ordinances and instructions in Dhamma given by Beloved-of-the-Gods, are following it and will continue to do so. This conquest has been won everywhere, and it gives great joy – the joy which only conquest by Dhamma can give. But even this joy is of little consequence. Beloved-of-the-Gods considers the great fruit to be experienced in the next world to be more important.

I have had this Dhamma edict written so that my sons and great-grandsons may not consider making new conquests, or that if military conquests are made, that they be done with forbearance and light punishment, or better still, that they consider making conquest by Dhamma only, for that bears fruit in this world and the next. May all their intense devotion be given to this which has a result in this world and the next.
14

Beloved-of-the-Gods speaks thus:[39] This Dhamma edict was written twenty-six years after my coronation. Happiness in this world and the next is difficult to obtain without much love for the Dhamma, much self-examination, much respect, much fear (of evil), and much enthusiasm. But through my instruction this regard for Dhamma and love of Dhamma has grown day by day, and will continue to grow. And my officers of high, low and middle rank are practicing and conforming to Dhamma, and are capable of inspiring others to do the same. Mahamatras in border areas are doing the same. And these are my instructions: to protect with Dhamma, to make happiness through Dhamma and to guard with Dhamma.

IMHO what Ashoka did was only a piece of why we humans came to see things that were done in the past as being evil or bad, the point here is that we humans are (or should be) learning from the past, if Ashoka was not there we could not even point at a good prototypical example of why we all eventually learned that we should not accept wars of conquest as business as usual.

[BrainGlutton]

@Deeg

George Wallace would be a candidate.

AIUI, he was never all that racist to begin with. But, the first time he ran for office, his opponent won by hitting the segregation issue hard, which Wallace did not, and Wallace vowed, “I’ll never be out-n****red again!”