AGA-1
Large-scale development benefit
Large-scale development benefit.
- Ethical axis
- Benefit ↔ Harm
- Ethical direction
- Positive pole
- Evidence status
- Verified
- Period
- 1957–2025
- Affected scope
- Nizari Ismaili community and Aga Khan Development Network
View the Aga Khan IV ethical assessment profile
This assessment does not reduce the subject to one moral ranking. Each dimension is scored separately from −100 to +100 and must be read with its evidence and uncertainty.
Scorecard status: Recalculated under multidimensional system
International development, health, education, cultural restoration, pluralism, hereditary authority and transparency.
The score evaluates documented public conduct during the stated period. It does not measure inherent human worth, does not constitute a legal verdict and remains open to correction when stronger evidence becomes available.
A strongly positive developmental record moderated by inherited authority and opaque institutional boundaries.
This assessment presents six separate ethical dimensions rather than one overall moral score. Each result must be read with its evidence, plausible range, confidence, disputes, exclusions, severe-harm findings and sources.
| Domain | Score | Intensity | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consequences | +80.0 | 80.0 | B — high |
| Rights and duties | +55.0 | 55.0 | B — high |
| Virtue and character | +45.0 | 45.0 | B — high |
| Intentions | +80.0 | 80.0 | B — high |
| Care | +80.0 | 80.0 | B — high |
| Justice | +55.0 | 55.0 | B — high |
| Wisdom and judgment | +75.0 | 75.0 | B — high |
| Baseline ethics | +65.0 | 65.0 | B — high |
| Positive pole | Negative pole | Score | Intensity | Confidence | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Human dignity | Dehumanisation | +65.0 | 65.0 | B — high | Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Human dignity and Dehumanisation. |
| Care | Neglect | +80.0 | 80.0 | B — high | Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Care and Neglect. |
| Benefit | Harm | +80.0 | 80.0 | B — high | Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Benefit and Harm. |
| Benevolent intention | Malicious intention | +80.0 | 80.0 | B — high | Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Benevolent intention and Malicious intention. |
| Justice | Injustice | +55.0 | 55.0 | B — high | Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Justice and Injustice. |
| Respect for rights | Violation of rights | +55.0 | 55.0 | B — high | Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Respect for rights and Violation of rights. |
| Integrity | Corruption | +45.0 | 45.0 | B — high | Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Integrity and Corruption. |
| Wisdom | Ignorance | +75.0 | 75.0 | B — high | Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Wisdom and Ignorance. |
Large, durable institutions serving health, education, culture and economic opportunity across communities.
Hereditary authority, concentrated resources and incomplete transparency reduce the result.
AGA-1
Large-scale development benefit.
AGA-2
Pluralism without religious discrimination.
AGA-3
Institution building with transparency limits.
AGA-4
Material and spiritual welfare.
AGA-5
Practical care through durable institutions.
AGA-6
Opportunity for disadvantaged communities.
AGA-7
Integrated long-term development.
AGA-8
Equal dignity with hereditary privilege.
Attribution and interpretation remain disputed; the assessment follows documented public conduct.
Unverified private allegations and conduct outside reasonable responsibility were excluded.
No corrections have been recorded.