View the Aung San Suu Kyi 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
The assessment covers nonviolent resistance to military dictatorship, personal sacrifice, democratic leadership and her government's failure to protect the Rohingya or acknowledge the scale of military atrocities.
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.
Aung San Suu Kyi's early courage and democratic leadership were substantial. Her later failure to defend the Rohingya and her defence of Myanmar before the International Court of Justice fundamentally reduce the ethical value of that legacy.
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 | -10.0 | 10.0 | B — high |
| Rights and duties | +15.0 | 15.0 | B — high |
| Virtue and character | +25.0 | 25.0 | B — high |
| Intentions | -20.0 | 20.0 | B — high |
| Care | -65.0 | 65.0 | B — high |
| Justice | -60.0 | 60.0 | B — high |
| Wisdom and judgment | -45.0 | 45.0 | B — high |
| Baseline ethics | -55.0 | 55.0 | B — high |
| Positive pole | Negative pole | Score | Intensity | Confidence | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Human dignity | Dehumanisation | -55.0 | 55.0 | B — high | Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Human dignity and Dehumanisation. |
| Care | Neglect | -65.0 | 65.0 | B — high | Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Care and Neglect. |
| Benefit | Harm | -10.0 | 10.0 | B — high | Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Benefit and Harm. |
| Responsibility | Irresponsibility | -20.0 | 20.0 | B — high | Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Responsibility and Irresponsibility. |
| Justice | Injustice | -60.0 | 60.0 | B — high | Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Justice and Injustice. |
| Respect for rights | Violation of rights | +15.0 | 15.0 | B — high | Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Respect for rights and Violation of rights. |
| Courage | Cowardice | +25.0 | 25.0 | B — high | Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Courage and Cowardice. |
| Wisdom | Ignorance | -45.0 | 45.0 | B — high | Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Wisdom and Ignorance. |
The strongest positive evidence concerns decades of nonviolent resistance, imprisonment and advocacy for democratic government and civil liberty.
The strongest negative evidence concerns denial, silence and international defence of the state while the Rohingya suffered mass atrocity, displacement and systematic persecution.
ASS-C1
Her movement helped sustain democratic hope, but her government failed to protect a persecuted population during catastrophic violence.
ASS-R1
She defended democratic rights for decades but did not extend equivalent protection to the Rohingya.
ASS-V1
Long imprisonment demonstrated courage, while later silence and denial under power showed grave failure of moral courage.
ASS-I1
Her early purpose was democratic reform, but later conduct prioritised political legitimacy and state defence over vulnerable lives.
ASS-CA1
Her administration did not provide effective protection, acknowledgment or remedy for people facing systematic persecution and mass displacement.
ASS-J1
The civilian leadership failed to reverse discriminatory structures or secure accountability for grave crimes.
ASS-W1
Defending the state while minimising documented atrocity obstructed accountability and durable peace.
ASS-B1
Her democratic language did not extend to full public recognition of Rohingya identity, suffering and equal worth.
Her civilian government operated under severe military constraints. Those constraints reduce attribution but do not erase her public authority, silence, denial or decision to defend the state internationally.
Military crimes were not automatically attributed to her as direct acts. The assessment scores her own leadership, omissions, public representations and institutional responsibility.
No corrections have been recorded.