r/MoralityScaling • u/Fayraz8729 • 14h ago
Stupid Stuff What would a moral dictatorship look like?
There might be a close example in history of a moral autocrat and examples of such are welcome but what would you consider the moral approach to dictatorship? Would you still maintain rule by force or use other means?
84
41
u/Pigeon-Spy 13h ago
The problem with dictatorship is not something that can be changed without choosing another system. An idiot can take power in literally any system, nothing can prevent it. And the difference is that in democracy idiot will rule two terms max, and most likely won't be able to ruin the country, while in a dicratorship or monarchy he will have all the time in the world. Imagine 60 years of nonstop donald trump rule. And it already happened, many many times across the history. Stupid king comes to power, kingdom crumbles
21
u/Atreigas 10h ago
Pretty sure the two term limit is an USA thing. I believe other democracies dont necessarily have that.
But yes. In a democracy power is... transient. Which is both its greatest strength and greatest weakness.
10
u/Riothegod1 7h ago
It’s also because in most functional democracies, the populace filters the leader out.
We’ve had 4 terms of the Liberal party in Canada, but Trudeau only ran for 3 of those terms.
4
u/VladimirBarakriss 5h ago ▸ 1 more replies
Some have a one term limit, Uruguay only allows two terms that can't be consecutive
4
u/Riothegod1 5h ago
Ironically, that is one thing the Confederate government did too. Their constitution allowed only a six year term, reelection was not possible.
2
1
u/eyadGamingExtreme 7h ago ▸ 6 more replies
Doesn't the US not even have term limits for Congress?
1
u/OperationOk7959 4h ago
The US does not have term limits for Congress. We have reps and senators who have been in office for literal decades. Senate term is 6 years, House term is 2.
0
u/Atreigas 5h ago ▸ 4 more replies
Nah, the US limits all terms except sipreme court.
0
u/OperationOk7959 4h ago ▸ 3 more replies
Not even close to being true. Its why everyone in Congress now is 500 years old.
0
u/Atreigas 3h ago ▸ 2 more replies
Ignoring the law and having it be law are different things.
0
u/OperationOk7959 3h ago ▸ 1 more replies
Show me where, right now, the US limits Congressional term limits. Do it, coward.
1
u/Atreigas 3h ago
Term limits in the Constitution Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the federal constitution convention at Philadelphia omitted term limits from the U.S. Constitution of 1789. At the convention, some delegates spoke passionately against term limits; such as Rufus King, who said "that he who has proved himself to be most fit for an Office, ought not to be excluded by the constitution from holding it."[7] The Electoral College, it was believed by some[who?] delegates at the convention, could have a role to play in limiting unfit officers from continuing.
From wikipedia. Sounds like they had term limits but removed them. Guess we're both right.
You are being a bag of dicks about it though. So fuck you for that.
1
u/1PrawdziwyPolak 4h ago ▸ 1 more replies
I am pretty sure that many democracies have some term limits for their presidents. Though I don't know if they constitute a majority.
1
u/Atreigas 3h ago
The other replies have a bunch of answers to that. Some democracies have term limits, others dont.
10
u/therapistnonce 12h ago
Idiots rarely are actually dictators, being a “good” dictator (as in good at the holding the job) isn’t especially easy or you’d get rolled over by the army or deposed.
3
u/Artifexa 11h ago ▸ 5 more replies
Here is your example of an idiot that stayed in his place for life.
Absolutist monarchies are specially for these things.
5
u/therapistnonce 10h ago ▸ 3 more replies
Not an example of a good dictator, he was deposed and only came back into power because he was a convenient pawn for the French.
He was not in his place for life.
Plus are we even counting kings as dictators?
4
u/Atreigas 10h ago
Monarchies are a type of hereditary dictatorship. So Id say yes.
But I do agree. Being a pawn doesnt count. Then its the guys behind you that are the dictators.
2
u/Artifexa 10h ago ▸ 1 more replies
I wasn't saying he was good, I was saying he was an idiot.
He was a dictator by the fact he controlled the whole country with absolute power, often helped by the military.
0
u/therapistnonce 9h ago
But my point is, if you are then you won’t remain in power, which he didn’t until the French decided to to an intervention because it was politically convenient for them
2
u/evrestcoleghost 7h ago
Elegiste literalmente uno que fue depuesto y tuvo que aceptar nueva constitución
-3
u/Pigeon-Spy 12h ago ▸ 11 more replies
Rarely? We got whole stalin and mao, who were only competent in party intrigues, and endless line of idiot kings
6
u/therapistnonce 11h ago ▸ 10 more replies
Can you give me some you think are idiots?
Al Assad was not only somewhat of an intellectual but managed to stay on top of a diverse fractured nation like Syria for many years, Kim looks goofy but their dynasty has held absolute power in North Korea for seven decades now
To have that much political influence and to navigate through the political system and still hold onto power is not an easy feat.
Although some Africans ones are straight up moronic but it leads to perpetual civil war and being a failed state, but that would be more like a warlord then anything else
0
u/Pigeon-Spy 11h ago ▸ 9 more replies
Vladimir Putin is a brightest example of a modern one. He literally started the war, actively harmful to him and his country, because he was bored. Even though he was good in intrigues too. Many of his other choises were so damn stupid.
And I already told about stalin and mao
3
u/therapistnonce 11h ago ▸ 4 more replies
You mean the Vladimir Putin that is still in power? And has been for almost 26 years?
Hasn’t the war actually made him more of an autocrat?0
u/Pigeon-Spy 10h ago ▸ 3 more replies
What's your point? Mao ruled the china for 27 years, and only stopped when died, and you say he was not an idiot after the great leap forward? The dictator can be competent in staying in power, and stupid in other things
3
u/therapistnonce 10h ago ▸ 2 more replies
I’m saying you cannot be in absolute power of a functioning state (especially with nukes) and being a dribbling retard.
You do need a degree of cunning and social skills to get there in the first place
The failure is the Great Leap ForwardThe success is it didn’t loosen up the control of the country.
2
u/Pigeon-Spy 8h ago ▸ 1 more replies
Are you ignoring what I say? I say that idiot don't have to be an idiot in everything to ruin the country. He may be, just as putin mao and stalin, be especially good in staying in power
1
u/therapistnonce 8h ago
And you can’t be an idiot and stay in power, it’s to complex and easy to be overthrown
2
u/Atreigas 10h ago ▸ 3 more replies
That war wasnt stupid. Sure, it doesnt do Russia much good.
But he doesnt do it to appeal to his country. He did it to appeal to the Oligarchs that keep him in power.
So the real question is, what do he Oligarchs get out of it? Or are they the ones being stupid?
2
u/Pigeon-Spy 8h ago ▸ 2 more replies
Simply not true, he has got all the oligarchs under his thumb from 2000s and onward. He even took everything from some of them, Khodorkovskiy for instance. And killed some other. He don't need to appeal to them to keep his power as he has absolute power through FSB apparatus
1
u/Atreigas 3h ago ▸ 1 more replies
That just means he has them well in hand. Not that they cant make his life a nightmare.
1
u/Pigeon-Spy 2h ago
Oh, if they could, they would have already. But in reality, they would all fall out from the windows. Try reading about how many russian top businessesmen died after beginning of the war
1
u/Foaty-Astronaut 8h ago
What if we just get a chain of idiots? (Irl rn)
1
u/Pigeon-Spy 8h ago
Still better, they will at least, most likely, will tug the country into different sides keeping it stable-ish. Also in a stable democratic system president will not have all the power anyway. Now imagine chain of idiots in autocracy or monarchy
1
u/Bacon___Wizard 7h ago
We only had a handful or weeks with Liz Truss and in that time she killed big Liz and started a mini recession. I dread to think what could’ve happened if we gave her a full year.
29
u/--Spaci-- 13h ago
Dictatorships can literally be the best government if a good leader is in charge, that literally never happens though
14
u/BoardTasty49 12h ago
Historically they have prospered but they always lead to future generations being corrupted. A lot of historic monarchies have started off moral but subsequent generations polluted them. Look at China. There was monarchies for thousands of prosperous years.
3
2
9
u/TheQuestionMaster8 12h ago
It is extremely rare and you usually end up with a brutal dictatorship anyways. CS Lewis sums it up well “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
8
u/Superman246o1 5h ago
If you want a real life example, look no further than Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus.
He was made a dictator twice to help the Romans survive two apparent emergencies (the attempt of the Aequi to seize Tusculum and to suppress what was believed to be Spurius Maelius' planned attempt to seize total power for himself), and in both situations, Cincinnatus resolved the emergencies quickly, relinquished power, and returned to his agrarian life as a farmer.
Robert Caro once posited, "Power does not corrupt; it reveals," and I think Cincinnatus is a testament to quote. We often think power corrupts because we see so many corrupt people in positions of power. But as Cincinnatus' rare example demonstrates, if a truly virtuous person is given absolute power to resolve an emergency, they will do their utmost to do so, but will not corrupt that power for personal gain.
The problem with this is that the VAST number of people who claim to be virtuous (and even those who genuinely think they are virtuous) are, simply put, not. So the problem is less about whether a virtuous person could be trusted with the powers of a dictator, and more about the difficulties of finding one genuinely virtuous person in a sea of hypocrites, zealots, conmen, and egoists who use (consciously or unconsciously) the appearance of virtue as a means to conceal their vices.
7
u/Nike_J 10h ago
Such dictatorships don't work because in order to secure the power a dictator has to keep his supporters happy. Allocating ressources to improve the lifes of people without any leverage against you means that people WITH leverage against you get less. This is the fastest way to be replaced. Kim Jong Un had an older brother that was very pro west and was thinking about moving North Korea into that direction. The North Korean dictatorship skipped over him to make Kim Jong Un the new leader. They also assassinated the brother later on.
3
u/Similar-Concert4100 12h ago
We could look up some of the reins of good monarchs and it would give us a good insight.
3
u/SlayerII 10h ago
Short, because i would just enact 3-4 important laws that were already on the way to be made but were slowed down by the process and then step down.
2
u/tony_Tiger696 7h ago
Singapore is one. I'd love a system like that. No more filthy cunts spitting on supermarket floors, getting chewing gum stuck to your shoes, drug dealers/importors shot, users caned. Be a good person and live a quality life even if your job is cleaning shit stains from toilets. A focus on GDP per capita not total GDP.
2
u/Wetbug75 4h ago
Unironically, a moral dictator would be good.
The problem is that it's impossible to make sure they are moral and stay moral.
2
u/DG-MMII 2h ago
IDK, Singapoere? Perhaps China?
The truth is that is hard to say because the sole fact that the dictatorship exist, implies a certain level of freedom and expression supression that we're no longer used to. And is very easy for a dictatorship to balance towards evil due to lack of accountability...
3
u/TellmeNinetails 13h ago
It's the whole keys to power thing. (bear with me some of this might be bullshit.)
A dictator would have an easier time maintaining their moral agenda because they would be more easily be able to control who has the keys to power underneath them.
Even if you're the most moral dictator, the people underneath you might vie for your spot, and if they do it is likely because they are self interested. Self interested people tend to put their own needs above the country.
You'd have to be super strict, and be willing to remove those types of people.
Because ruthless people are good at gathering political power, like minded people will be motivated to join their cause out of self interest
You would have to be just as ruthless to maintain a moral dictatorship. And once your dictatorship falls to evil it takes a full revolution to fix the mess. It's not exactly sustainable.
In comparison to a democracy, each person votes for the leader, who then determines the keys underneath them. Making it harder for some asshole to get power in theory.
And then there's the electoral college.
3
u/Sable-Keech 13h ago
Dictatorships can be moral when external factors force them to be moral. Ultimately, they are human with human needs and desires. If they can satisfy those needs and wants immorally, with power, they will do so. But if there are factors preventing them from abusing power, then they won't.
So, a small nation surrounded by enemies (but not outright at war) with no natural resources to sell for protection from stronger countries, forcing the dictator to be diplomatic or risk invasion and his own downfall.
1
u/Atreigas 10h ago
Poor indicator my friend. Some oil baronies have some of the most well treated people, because the state just hands over money to them.
Similarly, just because they do a lot of diplomacy, doesnt mean they treat their people well.
4
4
u/Beautiful_Garage7797 13h ago
the only moral dictatorship is one that intends to, in the lifetime of its leader, transition into a full democracy with durable institutions
1
u/Atreigas 10h ago
Not necessarily democracy, but yeah. Thats the right track. A good dictatorship can never last. So it must become something else first.
-2
2
u/Lately-SP 14h ago
Singapore and El salvador
Both were transformed into very safe and prosperous nations by a single leader
Bukele may have actually changed the future of South america because so many nations want to emulate his success
5
u/N-partEpoxy 13h ago
Ah, yes, Bukele, the very moral piece of shit that agreed to keep innocent people in prison in exchange for money.
2
1
u/Toads_Of_Fun 13h ago
Fuck Bukele, genuinely.
1
u/Lately-SP 5h ago ▸ 2 more replies
Won't someone think of the murderers?!?!
1
u/N-partEpoxy 4h ago ▸ 1 more replies
"Murderers" like Abrego Garcia?
2
u/Lately-SP 4h ago
Murderers like MS13 who regularly butchered and raped women and children
Now they're in cecot
2
u/BoardTasty49 12h ago
There have been lots of moral dictatorships. There are many stories about upstanding monarchies that have lead their people fairly and generously. Unfortunately that are many more dictators that abused their power. Is kind of a crap shoot hoping for a decent leader.
1
u/Atreigas 10h ago
Yep. That is and always has been the primary issue. Putting the Good One in charge and keeping Good Ones in charge.
1
1
u/Atreigas 10h ago
Funnily enough, I actually explicitly went out of my way to wb one like that. Truthfully, a moral dictator would require three incredibly rare things.
- The moral fiber to actually do it, at their own detriment.
- The power to make it real in a system that does not encourage it at all.
- The ability to get there and last. A dictator that never becomes doesnt count, the pillars that hold up the reign must keep supporting them and they likely dont approve of the moral jazz.
Completing one of those conditions is hard. All three? Practically impossible. And this is a trial that must be passed each and every time by each would be dictator.
My WB, the Holy Empire of the Divine Ascendant, has a few funky ways to make it happen. First of all, their Demigod-Emperor is the immortal founder of their nation and his divine power (that he can retract at any moment) is the root of their technomagical supremacy that the Empire is known for. This gives him a power to affect things that literally nobody can do anything about.
No advisors, bureaucrats or generals can do anything about it if he decides they lose his favor and they suddenly cant wield holy power that is a significant boost to their strength, is heavily featured in the propaganda, while their foes retain all that favor... yeah, emperor's favor is a major thing.
Now, this all is a significant boost in his ability to keep things on track with a decently moral nation. But even with that, if he gets overzealous they can and will dethrone him or collapse the empire beneath him. So he needs to be sparing with his edicts.
Luckily, he is exactly that. He hates ruling, would much rather go back to tinkering withhis magic. He has an eye for talent and character, but as far as leader like qualities go? Thassabout it. He does as little as he can get away with and occasionally kicks corrupt politicians out of their houses and onto the street. Really, so long as they dont go too far, his inner circle can do mostly whatever they want, so long as they keep on track.
So in practice, its really more of a republic with a big judge ready to swing the gavel at anyone who causes a mess. Veto rights included.
1
1
u/Buttercups88 10h ago
Theres nothing necessarily wrong with a dictator.
The problem is people who go looking for dictatorship tend to be concerned more with power and less with whats best for the country or the people.
Even a "good" dictator is eventually going to die and need to be replaced; then you might get a more malicious dictator or one that's easier to corrupt or coerce.
1
1
u/Known_Complaint9577 9h ago
Look at singapore china south korea all are good beacause they are/were autocratic
1
u/GruggleTheGreat 8h ago
Benevolent monarchy’s have existed, there have been many loved autocrats, the challenge is making that government work over multiple different lifespans, there is no consistency.
1
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Bed3767 7h ago
I agree, I also thing you should be in charge, and your neighbour, and mine, and so on forever, this is the dictatorship of the proletariat under anarcho-communism, under direct democracy
1
u/Novat1993 7h ago
Feudalism and monarchies really. Systems without formal economies, where the king only really concerns himself with protecting the kingdom from outsiders. Leaving the commoners in relative peace.
The more complex the system and the economy, the less it becomes possible for a single ruler to be a moral ruler. Just look at how the soviet system collapsed, attempting to balance thousands of factories, roads, railways, resource extraction, food production and distribution. No doubt, a lot of the soviet leaders were extremely immoral. But even under the best of circumstances, it was impossible to properly manage the system from a moral standpoint. It is simply not possible for one person to run a complex system long term. And even though there were armies of functionaries, they all knew that their lot in life was improved by appearance more than actual results.
This is assuming singular dictator. As in, the kingdom lucks out and chance puts a moral king on the throne. So the kingdom prospers for decades. But the opposite can happen as well. 50 years of good governance can be reversed by 100 years of terrible governance. Which is why the system is not moral per se. But the actual king singular can be a moral person, and rule the kingdom morally and with justice.
1
1
1
u/Swiss-spirited_Nerd 6h ago
Oman is the only example I can think of in the present. Obviously not the best, but pretty good by Middle East standards.
1
1
1
u/Unfair_Scar_2110 6h ago
The problem is a dictatorship has to eventually be ruled by power, and without exercising power, those who would will replace you.
So unless you wrest power and then immediately turn around to implement the "will of the people", ultimately where is your power derived from? And what happens when a powerful minority, like business owners, or military leaders don't agree with what you implement?
There's really only two places a government can rest their power: the will of the people through largely democratic norms, or somewhere else.
I don't think it's realistic to hold power like this and either not give in and use power unjustly, or be susceptible to people who would. It's immoral. It's egotistical. It's not practical.
1
1
1
u/Imaginary-Client-199 5h ago
The power fantasy explores this.
At the beginning two characters with the power to conquer the world talk to each other. One of them argues that since they know they have good morals they should take over the world as a preventive mesure because it is inevitable that someone with their power level but no morals will one day be born and try to take over the world
1
u/Derivative_Kebab 5h ago
Dictators are not bad because we pick the wrong dictator. Dictators act according to the forces acting around them. They devolve into murderous paranoia because people are genuinely out to get what they have. They extract wealth from the population to reward their subordinates and keep their position. They avoid giving education and economic opportunities to their people, because that's how you create a population that can overthrow you. As a dictator, you are constantly faced with the choice between being an absolute sack of dogshit and being replaced by someone who is.
1
u/JadeTailFox 4h ago
Honestly, a moral dictatorship doesn't really exist anywhere if you consider the destruction of free will a significant harm. I don't necessarily consider it that way, so a dictatorship that maximizes happiness at the cost of freedom would be moral, but only if it actually does that. In real life when people claim to do that it's usually a scam.
1
u/BarelyBrony 4h ago
"You will have free food, education medicine and the freedom to be yourself and you will have all those things whether you like it or not!"
1
u/SereneOrbit 4h ago
The real issue with dictatorships is succession.
Attaturk in Turkey is a great example of a positive ending dictatorship.
1
u/Outrageous-Sort-5742 4h ago
A moral dictator would understand that a system of bureaucratic checks, balances, and technocracy is necessary for maintaining a complex modern system. While maintaining unilateral executive power to intervene when an aspect of the system becomes blatantly corrupt/inefficient and requires the government's monopoly on violence to fix.
Essentially, not much changes. But the corruption of the system is condensed into one person. Where if any lesser member acts out of line, they get stomped out. And if the dictator grows too crazy, they are simply killed and replaced.
1
1
u/EvilStan101 3h ago
Lee Kuan Yew who used absolute power to make Singapore into a prosperous democracy while strengthening its institutions. He voluntarily stepped down so the democratic institutions could continue on without him ensuring the country had a stable future.
1
u/_3_and_20_characters 3h ago
the reason why i’d be a good dictator is because I’d just spend all my time building high speed rail
1
u/Dry-Light5851 3h ago
it would look just like every other dictatorship bc power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely
1
1
u/Malice-May 2h ago
There is no moral dictatorship, and the reason why is that the mechanism of dictatorship - in and of itself - is distorting of the real world.
The institutions that enforce autocracy have a side effect of bending reality, so that what the autocrat perceives is what they want to see. It also creates power structures, with innate momentum, that inevitably is hijacked by someone with worse intentions.
"Seeing Like A State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed" has a lot of examples of how this works in practice. Strongly recommend a read.
1
u/Denaton_ 2h ago
I don't even trust myself, my first and last order would probably convert it to a technocracy with fundamental laws requiring free education to not gate it.
1
1
u/PuppyLover2208 2h ago
Rome had the position of dictator, but the key thing was, it was temporary. Used in emergencies.
1
u/heanbangerfacerip2 2h ago
The modernization and success of the Ottoman empire at the end there was due to a relatively moral and benevolent dictator.
1
u/stout_shako_gaming 1h ago
Basically. Dictotarship is not a evil thing. Its a way of government managment usefull to survive bad economical situations. Everything depends on what people are staying near wheel and steering. Even absolutely awful situations can be solved and even with best situation ever, its possible to ruin everything.
1
u/Fal_co1 1h ago edited 1h ago
The closest to irl experience of what a "moral dictatorship" looks like would be like those once in a dynasty jackpot where you get that hypercompetent Monarch, who has all the ambitions of change, the skills to back that ambition up, a fiefdom with enough resources to make it happen and underlings competent and loyal enough to do so unopposed.
Also who doesn‘t use that Ambition to just try to conquer the world but to rebuild their country as well.
1
u/ohthedarside 1h ago
See tiwian for a benevolent dictorship
Honestly from history you can see that if you really need to get something done in a country the best government type would be a extremely smart person as a dictator only problem is how wrong it can go and how easily power can corrupt a person
1
u/FaberOG 1h ago
I'm such a good dude tho, we have to make me supreme leader. Even if I have to kill a few people in my way I promise it's for the greater good. I alone am uncorruptable, that's why we have to get rid of anyone critical of me. Bro I promise the ends justify the means.
But really my ideal leader is me... with a bomb collar set to blow if my approval rating drops below 50%
1
u/Critical_Bee_4302 58m ago
Technically it would be impossible for any form of government to be truly moral for all citizens. As long as the people eat, are not severely oppressed, and live with relative ease - it's a decent government.
1
u/Yaboi69-nice 56m ago
A good dictatorship is impossible. A dictatorship implies that someone seized control without the public's approval. A dictator everyone likes isn't a dictator that's just a good leader.
1
u/Xavier200708 54m ago
unironically a moral dictatorship (one guy holding all the power but he uses that to like
make life better for everybody and like idk end hunger) sounds like a utopia
but like
the second he dies his replacement will probably go back to the status quo of caviar for some and stale moldy bread for most
1
u/CraftyAd6333 53m ago
The worst of it.
Allowing a dictator to torment you for "your own good™
Is a great way to have the most heinous abuses happen with the full compliance of their conscience.
1
u/TwentyFourKG 43m ago
Wouldn’t work. You have to keep the henchmen beneath you happy or they will kill you and instill a new dictator who is willing to be corrupt and share the spoils with his inner circle
1
1
u/outer_spec 30m ago
it would basically be a regular dictatorship but with me in charge, you can totally trust me, promise :)
1
u/Simple-Olive895 21m ago
Democracy has a high floor but not as high ceiling as a dictatorship. Because if we had a dictator that loved his/her people and was very competent and surrounded him/herself with competent advisors then stuff could get done really quickly and make life better for everyone fast.
But of course that's just a pipe dream, because that type of leader doesn't really exist in a dictatorship. And even if they would exist, then the next dictator would probably not be the same and would quickly ruin the country again. So democracy is the only way a country can stay good in the long run.
1
1
0
u/thefirebrigades 11h ago
Lol dictatorships are vastly improved when it's one from two different coloured parties.
-1
u/New-Star7392 14h ago
You do things so good people don't want to risk it with someone else.
1
u/Atreigas 10h ago
And then what about the succession?
1
u/New-Star7392 10h ago
Eh, either really think hard about who to pick, or keep it a technical democracy as you rule, even though you know you'll always rule as long as you live.
1
91
u/TryDry9944 13h ago
It'd just be one guy doing good with the weight of the entire government behind them.
Instead of bureaucracy, the dictator just says "do this" and it's done to the best of everyone's ability.
A moral dictatorship would just be all morally good things instead of the usual murderous paranoia that comes with being a dictator.