I apologize if I was wrong in thinking you started it. You do seem reluctant to let go of it. No. They vary by the culture, the beliefs and laws of each society. The leader's faithfulness to the code is expected to be unvarying; what makes any individual a moral or immoral leader is the degree of his adherence to the code he swore to uphold when he took office (assumed the throne, whatever the custom.) If his faithful execution of those duties varies, he's not a reliable leader. I did no such slapping. In response to "Who are his people?" ; I guessed they are the people he leads - it is to them the leader owes loyalty. Evil doesn't come into that; he can be a bad or good man, a bad or good leader to any people in the world. Those same people he leads, and to whom he has a duty and the ones who judge whether he is a good or bad leader. Nor did I attempt to find out what their definitions were. I merely stated that they were guided by the principles of their time culture, not by what we might think of them posthumously. You and I were asked that by the title of the thread. It is to that theme I have eandeavoured throughout to remain faithful. That's how you know it's an effect: people are exhibiting it; in the same way that exhibiting a rash on the body is the effect of exposure to poison oak; it is caused by the toxin in the plant. Thus, the exhibition or expression of character flaw is the effect of having evil in human nature. Everyone has it, and everyone exhibits or expresses it in different ways, by different means, to different degrees, in different circumstances and for different purposes. I didn't say indulging oneself. I said indulging - that is, allowing free rein to, allowing their actions to be controlled by, instead of curbing and controlling - an internal drive or urge, including the evil portion of one's nature. There are many other kinds of indulgence and self-indulgence, but that is the one I specified. I have also, several times, cited circumstances and diminished capacity as mitigating factors when we assign degree of guilt. I very much doubt the legal term "depraved indifference" refers to functionaries working hard and conscientiously at their assigned duties. While this definition may well be true of many leaders' actions, it is not a charge generally brought against dutiful ones. That's the usual plea at war crime tribunals. The only way to judge degree of guilt is case by case, in possession of all the evidence - and even then, we often get it wrong. But I've said this before. I don't like going in circles.