Standing in judgement is often misguided

This thoughtful essay struggles with the problem of defining a universal set of values. “Universal” means that it will always be acceptable, by all people, at all times and in all places. Why is such a set of values desirable? Because, presumably, it will reduce conflicts among human beings.
To illustrate the difficulty of formulating such a set of values, David Bell points out that George Washington was a hero and a patriot, the father of his country. But he was also a slave owner. How therefore should we judge him?
Perhaps a better question is: why we should judge him at all? What gives us the right to pass judgement on anybody, especially when he is from a different time and place and has been moulded by conditioning far different from our own? Jesus got it right when he said “Judge not.” A lesser moral luminary, Gordon Gekko, played by Michael Douglas in the movie “Wall Street 2”, also got it right when he said “We’re all mixed bags.” 
No generation has the right to judge an earlier generation by its own standards. In ancient times, slavery was considered normal. Nowadays it’s considered an abomination. Practices that we consider normal may someday be considered abominations by future generations. I can imagine a day when meat eating will be universally considered a sin and Eric Bahrt a pioneer in the crusade for animal rights. I can imagine a day when people will condemn Jesus and the Buddha because they ate meat; a day when zoos will be outlawed, and keeping pets (non-human slaves) will be a crime; a day when inter-species marriage will be allowed, and even encouraged, on the grounds that all living beings are equal.
Moral relativism, despite its wishy-washiness, has much to commend it. It’s certainly preferable to moral absolutism, which says “I’m right and you’re wrong, so I’m going to kill you.” A judicious middle way between the two extremes would say that “some actions are morally better than others”. Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism, got it right when he advocated acting for “the greatest good of the greatest number”. This is a useful standard to shoot for. The Golden Rule “Do to others as you would have them do to you” is an excellent guide, as is a principle derived from the ancient Code of Hammurabi, “Do no harm.” If doing harm is unavoidable, Bentham comes to Hammurabi’s rescue with “Do the least possible harm to the smallest number.” And Confucius weighs in with “The superior man cherishes righteousness; the inferior man cherishes profit.”
Such maxims give us a basis for a universal system of values. They are broad and flexible enough to permit a variety of specific applications without being narrowly dogmatic. It is ironic that the person who impels us to this debate is a profoundly amoral animal, Donald Trump, who would disappoint Confucius by championing profit over righteousness every time. But sometimes we have to be challenged by the devil before we can clarify our thinking.
Ye Olde Pedant