HUMANE CONSEQUENTIALISM

I have just thought of a basis for morality that allows any reasonable adult human being to determine for oneself whether an action (or even a thought) is morally justified or not.

I will call it 'Humane Consequentialism'.

For quite some time, religionists have wrestled with the question as to whether or not the masses of people would be moral if they did not have some religion as a basis for their morality.

I do think it is a good question, and I also think I have a good answer.

With Humane Consequentialism, any person can assess potential consequences of his or her actions and determine as best he or she can whether the consequences will be beneficial or non-beneficial to humanity--even if that humanity is just oneself.

Sometimes, however, the potential consequences can have a mixture of potential benefits and potential harm; well, in such a case the decision maker has to weigh the potential benefits against the potential harm.

In this way, in many cases, science can be used to make the best decisions, rather than depending upon non-scientific ideas or notions.

well, someone might say, we can't always wait for scientific research or experimentation to make all of the decisions in our everyday lives. That is true, but now, with Humane Consequentialism, you can use your own wisdom gained by way of your own experiences to help you make decisions that can't be postponed.