Assuming that morality is subjective, I propose the following hypotethetical.
Let's say you have a time machine and use it to travel to different periods in time, and across to one alternate world. So you go back in time and you bring back with you Ghana's Khan, Alexander the Great, George III (King of England) and a person from an alternate timeline in the 21st Century, where everything is the same, except for the fact that the NAZIs won the second world war.
You bring these people to our timeline in the 21st Century. After adjusting to life in the twenty-first century, these men now start to try to accomplish their goals
Genghis Khan sees Inner Mongolia ruled by the Chinese, and wishes to return his people's homeland, so he takes charge of the Mongolian army and launches a campaign against the Chinese, insisting that he will take back Inner Mongolia, no matter how many Chinese or other civilians he has to kill in the process
Alex the Great wishes reconquer his empire, and is willing to throw the Indigenous populations off their lands, desires to rule over part of the Middle East, and believes that he can solve the Israel-Palestine conflict by ruling over the land himself
George III wish to reclaim America, and is willing to do whatever it takes to achieve that goal. He's even willing to imprison any of his opponents, even if that means imprisoning all 350,000,000 inhabitants of the USA
The man from the alternate 21st Century has spent his whole life believing that the NAZIs were a benevolent organisation, and that Hitler was a true hero. Almost everyone in his timeline believes that Hitler was a great hero who did good for the world, and anyone who opposes this beliefe is considered insane. Further, this guy believes that the whole situation in the Middle East would have been avoided, if like in his time, Hitler had completed the job and eliminated the Jews, as there would be no Israel for the Israelis and Palestians to fight over
So the question is this- if morality is subjective- do you judge any of those men as immoral? If so, what do you bade that upon? Alex the Great thinks that by ruling over the Middle East benevolently, he will bring peace to the region, which was not too far from the morality of the time. Genghis Khanwishes to liberate his people from an oppressor, which means that by the moral standards of his time and culture, he was very moralistic, George III believed he had an obligation to British subjects to ensure they were the most powerful empire in the world so that the British themselves would never be oppressed, which again, was common to the morality of his culture and era, and the guy from the NAZI timeline was brought up in a world which believed that the NAZIs were doing good things. So, then, would you judge these men as immoral, and on what basis?
