To understand my argument here, one must understand the concept and the difference between absolute and objective. Something that is absolute is something that is wholly and completely true at all times- objective simply means a truth that is not dependent on personal (subject’s) perspective but is there. So something can be objectively true at one time, and then these truths can change in the future, and still be objective. That is what I say with morality. Something, which is morally objective in our time, may not be so in the future, because morality isn’t absolute, it changes and evolves, for example societal perception of gayness. So when author’s like Huxley criticize the way our future is turning out, for example in ‘A Brave New World’, they are using our objective morality and comparing it to the future as if it is absolute- the truth is that people from the past could criticize our society- in fact every society could criticize each other, and none would be right or wrong because it is not absolute. So is the world of Huxley’s future a bad place- using our current morality, yes! But then our world is a bad place compared to others so which morality is right? None, there is no absolute morality, or absolute moral right- unless you are a religious person, in which case how do you explain the changes and relativity in morality? So I suggest that Huxley’s world is no worse than ours in its own right, even though we would consider it bad.