Consequences count in morality!

      Utilitarianism is a consequencialist ethic. It reflects what is good for sentient beings and the environment. Those who object to it on its consequences then unwittingly affirm it. I call my version covenant morality for humanity- the presumption of humanism. It is situational and like science, is objective in being inter-jective and debatable. Thus,  it can explain sociological relativism as  due to diferences of opinion and the acceptance of facts. Yet, the common decencies find themselves world over.
    But my form paradoxically is also subjective- that what I call wide-reflective subjectivism that calls for our considered judgments to override our mere tastes and whims, a form of objectivity. It has two objective factors: [1]universal, applying to all and [2] the principles of equity and equality.
   The Platinum rule to be nice to each other means that I, as a rational being, want others to be nice to me, to be consistent then I must be nice in return. We all recognize that pathological persons and amoral ones will do to us whatever they can should we be in their ways!
    I found this paradox in reading Bevesluis' " C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion." where he expatiates about subjectivism, mentiioning that of Hobbes and Hume that I call wide-reflective subjectivism. He notes that for some people even a simple subjectivism can be fine. That would be that of Lord Russell and Michael Ruse.
     But scriptural morality reflects the atrocious simple one of those misanthropes who largely made it up from their whims and tastes. The command for genocides, the Deluge, the Sermon on the Mount and the reveling in Hell!
    Should theists then claim that no, they have a refined one, then they implicitly rely on our humanism as they'd have to use reason and facts, not the inverse they claim that we live off theirs!
     Putative God would have then an ethic parasitic on ours just as He'd be parasitic on natural causes and laws of Nature!
     Richard Carrier adumbrates his similar version in " Sense and Goodness without God: a Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism." that he calls goal theory.