Have been thinking about moral relativism lately and I recently re-watched the Harry Potter series.
Say there is this tribe in Borneo who believes that you should only wipe your butt on a tree trunk, to use your hand is evil. You're thinking that using your hand works perfectly fine for wiping your butt and it's not evil at all. Evil in this case is relative to the beholder. The tribe thinks we're evil and we think they are silly.
Voldemort cavorts with snakes. Not his fault as he was born with an affinity to snakes and can speak their language. Sure the snake is a symbol of evil in Christianity, but the animal could've been a crow just as easily.
Voldemort researched forbidden knowledge in the library's restricted section. Forbidding technology is silly. Would you restrict the knowledge of gun powder? Did Noble restrict the knowledge of TNT? No, he made millions of dollars off of it. Who get's to call knowledge "restricted"? Didn't Voldemort do a service by exposing forbidden knowledge?
Voldemort killed Harry Potter's parents. Well, they were trying to kill him.
Voldemort plotted the death of Dumbledore. True but Dumbledore was plotting the death of Voldemort.
Voldemort was different. If we kill everyone who is different, we're in for a long day.
Voldemort caused a war and people died. People die in war all the time. Voldemort might've had reasons to declare a war.
I think using a fictional well know character like Voldemort is better than using someone like Hitler cause Hitler carries a lot of emotional baggage.