Indeed, common opinion can drift to be more or less correct in some ways , while being less or more correct in other ways.

I don’t claim that all things our society says is bad which past societies said was good (or visa versa) , that ours is the correct one, nor always that theirs was the correct one.

Im just saying that there is a correct view (for at least almost all practically relevant and well-defined moral questions), and people across time should all strive to have the correct view, even if it clashes with views of the past or views of the future (though it may be wise to consider why people in the past had whatever view and why people in the future might have whatever view, and take these into account when trying to have the correct view)

Yeah, but we dont use this particular thing to claim that what Hitler or Stalin or yesterdays mass shooter did was actually ok. Even further into history, we do judge individuals freely on range of things - perceived betrayal being popular one.

We also celebrate historical people quite a lot - and we praise them and put them on pedestal as good examples it would be biased to not talk about flaws too.

We kill people today and justify it as good. (Warfare, executions.) There's no guarantee that future societies won't consider us barbaric.

> it would be biased to not talk about flaws too

Frankly we are obsessed about finding flaws in historical people. For example, Einstein treated his wife not so well. I don't feel any compulsion to bring that into a discussion of his achievements. It doesn't diminish his achievements.

> We kill people today and justify it as good. (Warfare, executions.) There's no guarantee that future societies won't consider us barbaric.

Which is fine and so what. Had Hitler won or Stalin won, I would be perceived and lesser and bad. So what?

Executions have a lot of opposition now. Various warfare has a lot of opposition now. People now judge both prosecutors and politicians that cause all that war related suffering.

> Frankly we are obsessed about finding flaws in historical people.

First, you made up obsession. Second, what you call historical flaws were pretty often subject of massive criticism of contemporaries. They were pretty often not really the norm.

Third, when you praise values or behavior of back then, the bad side of it is completely fair game. Because the wins are often related, facilitaded by or directly caused the ugly side.

> For example, Einstein treated his wife not so well. I don't feel any compulsion to bring that into a discussion of his achievements. It doesn't diminish his achievements.

And if you was taking about his relationship advice, his marriage behavior would suddenly matter.

If you talked about why women in past did not had same achievements as men, his wife history is very nice example to be used.