Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

A liberal refrain is to "be on the right side of history." The phrase relieves dissonance on controversial topics. When challenged on gay rights, for example, they might say, "You have some good points, but my position on this issue is on the right side of history." It's hard to imagine a conservative saying such a thing, perhaps because they are vaguely nostalgic for the past and its values and traditions. At the same time, it's hard to imagine a conservative actually being against the end of Jim Crow. Most conservatives appreciate civil rights heroes like Martin Luther King Jr., and nobody really wants to go back to the way things were.

Being on the right side of history is about future-proofing one's morality. You are predicting that your position will increase in popularity or validity over time. We are ultimately always grounded in the mores of the present. Why not expand one's definition of morality to include the surface area underneath the value of your position over the rest of your lifetime?

At the very least, futurism should be a sanity check on morality. Take some moral conclusion, then imagine if people would find that conclusion abhorrent 50 years from now. If so, maybe you should reconsider your position.

You could also predict personal change. What are the odds that you will maintain your position ten, twenty years from now. The ideal position is both morally correct at the time you make it, but also one that you will sustain or exceed during the rest of your lifetime. Otherwise, you risk hypocrisy.

I am more likely to be in moral disagreement with an American from 200 years ago than I am with an American today. Back then, the average American cheered on Manifest Destiny, owned or knew people who owned slaves, and tolerated duels as a way of resolving conflict.

The counterargument to futurist morality is that there are temporary regressions, such as Mao's cultural revolution or Nazism. History eventually corrected itself, so it seems, if we are selective about with time windows. Slavery went out of fashion in Christendom, only to return after the European discovery and subsequent colonization of the New World. Although, going out of fashion and going outside of the Overton Window are two different things.

Individual Predictions

We are headed toward an increase in concern over animal rights, at the very least because we are learning more about the nature of consciousness and what's going on in animals' heads. We are also getting better at extracting calories from Earth, so we don't need to consume animals as much. Synthetic foods are just around the corner, so it seems inevitable that we will all be vegetarians 100 years from now. Is it worth trying to be ahead of the curve? Is it worth it to be that one outstanding American 200 years ago who was against slavery, against Manifest Destiny, and against all violence in general? Is it worth it to have more in common with people one hundred years from now than the morally repugnant people of the present?

Our relationship with intersex and trans people will become clearer over the next 15-20 years. Those groups won't necessarily get everything they want, but many of the rough edges will start to smooth out. For example, trans people are still accused of "trapping" people into being attracted to them. Eventually, it will be taboo to make that suggestion. Trans and intersex people have abnormal rates of depression and suicide. These rates will bend towards normalcy over time.