Political figures who were basically only good for the world?

[Blue3]

Political figures who were basically only good for the world?

-Cyrus the Great of Achaemenid Persia (enforced what would now be called human rights, first powerful leader to embrace freedom of religion and regional autonomy/federalism, insisted on paying labor instead of using slavery, invented postal system and national parks (from which the word "paradise" originates), lived humbly and with a humble tomb -- his policies led to him being called a "messiah" by Jews in the old testament, and priests of his religion respected as wise men in the new testament -- and Babylonians called him "the liberator" for generations after, even though he defeated their neo-babylonian empire -- the cyropaedia was later used by Jefferson to help write the declaration of independence)

-Marcus Aurelius of the Roman empire (Stoic philosopher, writer, advocate of the protection of orphans and rights of children, advocate for freeing of slaves, tried to the deference of the emperor to the senate

-King James of Scotland and England (dedicated to national unity, parliamentary government, end of religious wars and peace in general, legals reforms for the right of women and children. writer, sponsor of the arts)

-Gandhi

-MLK

-Mandela

[oldtimer]

I disagree about King James due to him writing "The True Law of Free Monarchies" .

That's some Stalinism there about Monarchies being supernatural, and caused lots of trouble in Britain for centuries.

Pick Charles II as a replacement candidate, although he did behave with unnecessary vengeance, who decapitates dead bodies ?

[Open Source Intelligence]

Some Pakistanis would beg to disagree on Gandhi.

Ultimately you get in politics and it's pretty difficult to be "only good for the world". While that's what you aim for, any person of any great importance will naturally have people that will be against or antagonistic to their overall aims, sometimes for justifiable reasons.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Marcus Aurelius carried out genocides of several Germanic tribes. James I sowed the seeds of divine right monarchy which would eventually spiral into the Civil Wars and revived witch hunting. Gandhi was an appeaser during WW2. MLK was a raging misogynist. Mandela underestimated the AIDS crisis.

There's really so such thing as an "entirely good" person - in life in general, but especially not when it comes to historical figures. We still need positive role models, of course, and all these people are. But it's dangerous to revere them as saints.

[PSOL]

Cyrus was indeed beneficial for Jews and Persians–then just a sizable ethic group whose ancestors moved in and conquered the region of Far from the natives who would soon be assimilated–and indeed he was very open to letting people have certain freedoms of religion if they recognize Persian rule over their domains.

The first empire was cosmopolitan, but it was still an empire.

[LBJer]

There's really so such thing as an "entirely good" person - in life in general, but especially not when it comes to historical figures. We still need positive role models, of course, and all these people are. But it's dangerous to revere them as saints.

Very true.  That's why I'm not at all a fan of the "if someone had any significant flaw they shouldn't be honored" school of thought.  Not only does it hold individuals to an unrealistic standard, but it ignores the fact that there's something of great value in appreciating humanity in people--and as you said, being human means not being entirely "good."

[Blue3]

I'm not asking if they were a pure good person.


I'm asking if their impact on the world was "basically only good."

[lfromnj]

Ben Franklin!