Gilbert Harman argues that it would be illogical to make an internal judgment on Adolf Hitler because it was beyond any motivating considerations anyone could have, so it would 'strange' to say that he should not have ordered the extermination of the Jews. Harman's theory of moral relativism would therefore suggest that, with respect to Hitler's moral structure and his point of view, he did nothing morally wrong, which exposes an inconsistency with his theory of moral relativism. Explain that the reason people perform certain actions is because right or wrong actions are relative to their moral structure. Furthermore, the implicit agreement between two different groups is what allows morality to exist. Therefore, internal judgments regarding people's actions may be insufficient if their moral framework does not match that of others, since morality only emerges if judgments are made in relation to one's own moral framework. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay In Harman's reading "Defense of Moral Relativism," morality is based on implicit moral agreement, where such agreements can be determined through internal judgments regarding the actions of others. This theory has two relevant characteristics. First, internal judgments are plausible only when an agent of moral relativism is assumed to have reasons behind her actions. The second characteristic applies only when the person judging the agent approves of his actions, assuming that both agents have a similar moral structure guided by their society/group (Harman, p. 266). This idea of ​​what he presents as a “soberly logical thesis” has a specific use of the word “ought” when making moral judgments, where the use of the statement “ought to do” is relative to an agent and the type of act he he or she can perform. When making an internal judgment, Harman disassembles his thesis into a four-place operator, where "should" consists of (A, D, C, M). A as person/agent, D as type of action (theft, murder, help), C as set of considerations and M as motivational attitude of the agent (Harman, page 266). For example, internal judgments about someone's actions might say something like "An should not have done D" or "given that A has certain attitudes motivating M, and given certain considerations C, he should not have done D." Morality, in Harman's terms, consists of people's beliefs and considerations through implicit social agreement or understanding. The motivational attitudes considered through the predicate ought (A, D, C, M) are intentions to adhere to a particular agreement, on the understanding that others also intend to do so (Harman, page 267). In this case, agreements can also be reached through “moral bargaining” between people with different powers and resources (Harman, page 267). People have different beliefs and will promote their own interests; through moral bargaining, people can compromise and establish a set of principles that everyone can agree on. The “agreement” explanation can therefore be understood as an agreement of their intentions with respect to their moral principles. This explains why, according to Harman, why the duty not to harm others has greater weight than that of helping those in need (i.e. the poor). The rich, the poor, the strong, and the weak would all benefit from the principle of avoiding harm, but the rich and the strong would not benefit from the principle of helping others (Harman, p. 268). When an agent makes an internal judgment about someone, it presupposesthat this person has reasons to perform an action and that the agent approves of those actions, meaning that they have similarities within their moral structures. This is why Harman argues that it would be “strange” to say that “Hitler should not have exterminated the Jews.” People can say that Hitler was evil for what he did to the world's Jews, but we cannot make an internal judgment about him because we would not be able to understand the reasons why he behaved the way he did considering his moral framework. As Harman states, Hitler is "beyond the pale" for having made an internal judgment and that it would be an "abuse of language" to say that he should not have done what he did (Harman, p. 264). The idea that morality is based on agreement across an individual's moral structure means that people's beliefs may be subject to changes in opinion within different societies. People's beliefs and morals provide them with reason to act; being part of an agreement and everyone adhering to it. This explains why it would be “strange” to judge someone with a completely different moral framework of how they should act by claiming that moral judgments must have a shared morality, as would be the same for Hitler. Harman makes this distinction between Hitler and Stalin. Instead, it would be more logical for us to express a moral judgment regarding Stalin's actions, since we can observe that he was moved by the same considerations that others might also have (Harman, page 265). Harman's theory would imply that Hitler was motivated by a desire to make the world a better place by exterminating the Jews, as he believed they were inhumane and evil. If we can assume that Hitler carried out his actions as a moral relativist, then we cannot deny that he was part of the community. It would therefore be illogical to consider Hitler as an "alien" just because of his crimes. Harman fails to adequately explain why we can confidently say that Stalin is immoral, but not Hitler. The contradiction here is that if we cannot make an internal judgment on Hitler, then it should be the same case for Stalin, since they are known for mass murders. This would reveal that Hitler did nothing morally wrong because, relative to his moral framework, motivational attitudes and considerations, he was right in carrying out his actions. Hitler's actions led to the suffering of millions of people and nearly wiped out an entire race. Harman states that we cannot say that Hitler should not have exterminated the Jews since it would be "strange" to make that internal judgment, but we can say that what he did was evil, such as killing and suffering the Jews. Therefore, if moral judgments regarding Hitler's actions can be declared valid and true by other people as “evil” and “wrong,” how can killing and performing various wrong actions be evaluated as right? Another weakness is that if people can rationally believe that Hitler is evil for the things he did, it would imply that some objective moral principles exist and that they apply to everyone regardless of their respective beliefs. Furthermore, inconsistency in expressing internal judgment would allow people to think that performing a wrong action cannot necessarily be wrong. The claim that Hitler was evil is based on the innate belief that there are some objective moral principles that hold sway over everyone. No matter what the reason behind a person's actions, there seems to be some form of objective principles that make it possible to judge whether the action is moral or immoral or not. Harman's response might be that when an agent makes a moral judgment,.