Is it possible to believe in objective morality yet still not judge past people?

I was thinking about this very thing today,

I think I have it all figured out, I wish you the best.

quote:

---

Then it dawned on me; how can I simultaneously believe that basic morality is universal, objective, and self-evident, yet still think it unfair to use present day standards to judge our past leaders? If morality is indeed something that exists independent of human design, then these past folks should have had the same amount of access to it as we do. Thus, maybe I SHOULD think Mr. Calhoun a disgusting and vile american. But I don't.

---

You're correct to do so, as would the Calhouns of the past be justified to condemn our immoral acts of today if it were possible.

The fact is most cultures lean towards or evolve into cultures that view morality as relieve rather than transcendent, objective, and universal. The relative nature they ascribe to morality leads them to ignore moral truths for convince or personal gain.

Morality as a relative construct is absurd, but often accepted as a necessity. If morality were relative no society could condemn any other society for past, present, or future evils as each society is able to adopt its own moral code no matter how extreme it may seem. The same philosophy is also able to be applied to individuals, within the same logical process, to where one individual cannot accuse another of a moral atrocity.

If morality is transcendent all people of all cultures throughout all time are governed by the same moral principles regardless of societal conventions. Whether or not they choose to obey them is a separate argument. The politicians of the world have fought against this transcendent construct for obvious reasons of control.

Ultimately the elephant in the room must be addressed. How is morality justified? It's not enough to just say, "well morality is transcendent and everyone ought to (fill in the blank)". That would be a classic fallacy of begging the question. If one has a naturalistic world view, i.e. nature and matter in motion is all that exist, transcendent morality would be absurd. Moving molecules do not create abstract philosophies. Imagine trying to justify scientific law in that way. Matter in motion behaves the way it does because it behaves the way it does. It's obviously a viciously circular argument. That's why most naturalist are relative morality advocates which I believe is equally absurd. Your world view must be able to account for truths that are universal, invariant, abstract entities. Morality is one of several. Others include laws of logic, laws of science, the reliability of your senses, human emotions, and so on. I believe the only way that the laws of morality can be objectively true is if they stem from the moral compass of the creator. I believe the Christian world view is the only one that can account for universal truths and their distinct properties.

quote:

---

No one should judge people of the past by OUR standards. Instead, we should honor the judgments of their peers of their era

---

How do you know that we shouldn't apply our standards of judgement to people of the past? If it is something we (everyone) shouldn't do you are assuming an absolute moral code that applies to everyone in order to argue against an absolute standard of morality. It is self contradictory and ultimately arbitrary.

I'm not trying be contentious it is just necessary to show where the real debate is and what needs to be argued.