So when Homosexuality was anathema, was that right or wrong.
That rather depends on your precepts - for me, I'd say it was wrong because it was an unwarranted infringement in light of the lack of any obvious harm arising from the activity.
If it was right then and wrong now will it be right in future?
That depends on if we change the fundamental precepts upon which we make the judgement or if more information comes to light.
Why was the anathematisation of homosexuality right then and wrong now
Because authoritarian laws and hangovers from explicitly Christian ideas of 'sin' were considered more important than individual liberty in the culture of the time - in my opinion it was as morally wrong then as it would be now, but I wasn't there growing up in that climate.
How does the situation affect morality when it is after all just a changing situation.
In a constantly developing way - morality is not something outside of culture, it's part of the framework of culture. As one changes, so the other adjusts to accommodate and vice versa.
When you say involving do you mean moral progress?
Progress is a subjective claim - like biological evolution, it's a change to whatever's most suitable at the time, to try to make an absolute claim is fraught with peril given that the precepts of morality are subjective in the first place. If you take the idea of personal liberty until and unless there's demonstrable harm to be a reasonable basis for morality then I'd suggest that we've seen progress over the last century, yes. If you have other foundational understandings you might take a different view; I suspect much of the Chinese populace, for instance, where compliance with societal norms appear to given much more weight, might think that morality has foundered in the last few decades.
How is that measured?
If only we had a metric...
It seems to me that morality in your scheme is almost indistinguishable from cultural hegemony, political power and social fashion.
Pretty much - it's the elements of those concepts that are explicitly concerned with how we should rather than necessarily how we are.
In which case where does morality actually come in?
It doesn't 'come in', it 'comes out' - it's a product of society, not something impinging on society.
With all due respect to the wellbeingers and do no harmers does that mean that if we let others do harm we can still be moral?
That's a question in that framework - some people would enact 'Good Samaritan' laws, others would value the personal liberty to close your eyes and not get involved as more important. Personally I like to think I'd probably get involved if I saw something happening that I thought needed intervention - on some occasions I have (an old lady being accosted on a train late last year springs to mind), whereas on other occasions I haven't (I've walked past any number of individuals in London claiming to be homeless and begging for money).
In our constant evolution of morality then what is it our understanding is changing about?
What we, collectively, aspire to be.
O.
