A planet in domicile does not a good person make
Essential dignity and ethics are distinct. Let's explore!
First off, please excuse the title; I needed to be to-the-point, but I actually loathe the concept of a “good person”. I believe people are fundamentally fallible, continually defined by their actions rather than something inherent about themselves. People can change: I’ve seen many people go from left-leaning in their youth to super reactionary in their 40-50s. I’ve also seen people sincerely repent after abusive acts and strive to become helpful, compassionate and sweet1. I dislike how “good person” is used loosely, without much clear definition for the most part, and how it seems to stick a pin into someone, sometimes providing a pass for denial. Some people can’t face what they’ve done because they need to cling to the idea of themselves as “good people”. Introducing a bit more fluidity around this actually facilitates bettering oneself, in my opinion.
The topic I want to tackle is the assumption that a planet that is essentially dignified (in the sign of their domicile, exaltation, in their own face or terms) translates to high ethical or moral standards for the person born under their auspices.
Lots of people have dignified planets
The idea of dignified planets automatically yielding more moral people just sounds statistically ludicrous if you think about it, especially for slower planets. How could each person born under Jupiter in Pisces be a show of strong ethics2? It lasts for a whole year! We would know if people born in 1986 were above average in that regard. Even starker for Saturn, a planet who takes about three decades to circle the zodiac. Obviously, it isn’t that simple. And yet, it happens that people let themselves take that shortcut of “dignified = good”.
Power & consideration
Essential dignity is about power. And power is not ethically charged as a positive in that sense. A Queen is not virtuous because she is a Queen. She might be regarded as such in a country that values the institution of monarchy and has idealised their sovereigns, but she might a disastrously selfish and mean person, and a terrible ruler.
Jupiter is dubbed the Greater Benefic, and associated to generosity, wisdom and erudition. Both Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia were born under Jupiter in Sagittarius, in domicile and triplicity3. And indeed, as Supreme Court Justices, both have wielded tremendous power, enjoyed considerable prestige from a Jupiterian position. Is it good, though? If you’re a raging conservative, sure…
Similarly, transphobic activist Dora Moutot was born with Venus in Taurus. While she started out by speaking out on sexism on social media, she’s shown her readiness to in cahoots with men on the far-right if it meant being able to advance a transmisogynistic agenda…4!
You can find almost as many murderers with Venus in Libra (22) than with Venus in Aries (25) on Astro-Seek. Several signs were Venus is not as dignified as in Libra feature less (16 for Venus in Gemini, 12 for Venus in Leo, for instance).
Now, of course, essential dignity is not the sole factor taken into account when evaluating planetary condition in a natal chart. We would also look to aspects (is the planet bonified or afflicted?), accidental dignity (is the planet angular, succedent, cadent?) to know more. Even so, an extremely dignified planet, or even an overall “good” chart when it comes to dignity does not necessarily translate to this power being used for good.
Let’s look at example charts! I’ve selected five people who have done unequivocally terrible stuff and have pretty significantly dignified natal placements.