As we judge the moral failing of our predecessors and those of other cultures, so too will we be judged by our descendants and those of future dominant cultures. Our acceptance of that may help us to avoid the atrocities that may arise from any unidirectional belief in the absolute correctness of an existing position. Morality and its misapplication underscore the importance of understanding the model of human creative thought and the creative origin of morality so that we avoid tyranny by a would-be dictator, regardless of whether he or she is a king, clergyman, or scientist. Note that it is not politics, religion, or science, per se, that necessitates tyranny. It is the individual person using the mantle of politics, religion, or science to justify what may be his own inner turmoil, or, as others have explained (Psychol. Rev. 2001;108:814–34; Neuron 2004;44:389–400), to rationalize his emotional impulse toward a self-serving goal.
Society has created an extensive system of judgment that defines the limits for what can be tolerated within whatever bounds it may consider moral behavior. This is our legal system. Our legal system sets out the rules of social behavior and the punishments for violations. But even our legal system evolves with the times and differs across countries, each with its own national culture (and set of subcultures). If society perceives what exists (ban on gay marriage) and envisions what it believes to be something better (legalizing gay marriage), then an action plan will be formulated and enacted in an attempt to overturn the law.
Temperament is crucial. If Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement had retreated after their first encounter with police resistance and illegal violence against them, they might not have succeeded. But once the prevailing paradigm starts coughing up blood, minds start to change, society's mores evolve, and the paradigm eventually shifts. Perhaps one day in the future when our personal genomes become as standard a part of our medical record as our date of birth, we will not look upon genetic disclosure to research participants as such a great risk, but rather take the opposite approach of ensuring full genetic disclosure regardless of uncertainties or implications. What is moral today in America differs from 200 years ago even though our biology has not changed in that time, nor have the philosophical anchors of western civilization. What changes is the attitude of the people who live here and now, and that is what defines morality here and now.