I mean, you might be able to make some kind of argument about the good outdoing the evil (I think it would be hard, but hey, I won’t call a line of argument impossible until I see it happen). But, the idea that it would be challenging to name a country that did less evil than GB is pretty ridiculous, right?
Most countries didn’t have colonial empires, so GB is pretty high up there (arguably not at the top) in the evil rankings.
Sure. The UK has done a lot, both Good and Evil. There are lots of countries which have done less Evil than the UK. There are some countries which have done more Good than the UK. I can't think of any country which is on both lists.
I don’t think it is really quantifiable. Like if I say France, how would anyone adjudicate that? In terms of “good,” both contributed in WW2, both made some contributions to the concept of liberal democracy…
Having a colonial empire involves countless horrible acts of evil.
GB was a little bit ahead of the curve on ending the slave trade (at least compared to particularly shitty countries on this issue, like the US). But is it also a problem that they themselves contributed massively toward, so kind of a mixed bag there.
Those empires didn't build that infrastructure out of the kindness of their hearts, they did so to more efficiently enslave the locals and extract their resources and to make life more comfortable for the colonizers occupying the territories.
Absolutely not one bit of it was done to improve the quality of life of colonized people. That it did regardless is a statement about the neutral moral dimension of technology, not the relative good of imperialism.
Most countries didn’t have colonial empires, so GB is pretty high up there (arguably not at the top) in the evil rankings.