Somebody please go ahead and correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the idea of 'presentism' - judging the past by the standards of the present - is pretty much universally avoided by the historical community, and hence there really is no general consensus on how "moral" Napoleon Bonaparte was (or wasn't).

Well, for starters I think most modern historians (e.g. Grainger, Tombs, Schroeder) broadly agree that Napoleon was chiefly responsible for the continued warfare during the period. He was at fault for the failure of the Treaty of Amiens (1802), in a period where he really did have the opportunity to stop fighting. He never really took seriously the concept of a peaceful coexistence with his neighbours and competitors - peace efforts were simply a way to build advantages before the next outbreak of hostilities. War was what he was best at, and he was clearly addicted to it in some manner.

These wars caused millions of deaths, and brought misery to Europe (as well as beyond), so in this sense he was fairly immoral. To avoid accusations of presentism, yes, he was seen as a bloodthirsty warmonger at the time as well, with any initial positive reactions outside France quickly giving way to hostility as it became clear he would not stop. To my knowledge, Napoleon never gave any indication that he found the death and destruction regrettable or unfortunate.

On top of that, he did commit war crimes on at least one occasion that I can think of, massacring Ottoman Prisoners during his Middle-Eastern campaign, although he did this out of a sense of operational necessity rather than malice (hardly an excuse, but I think intent must be considered).

I'll avoid discussing his morality as a social and political reformer, as that is much more controversial, and a bit beyond what I'd feel comfortable claiming adequate knowledge of.

There's a whole section on the faq for this.