@swiley I don't think everyone has necessarily consented to their morals, I think actually accepting our morals is the goal of the inner process of asking what our version of perfect morals would look if we created it ourselves

Morality, in my opinion, is an all-inclusive attempt at creating the most effective action paths to general (or any) life goals, so I think they can be how a person treats one's self as well

Each person in a group should probably make constant efforts to add discussion to (in the case of disagreements) and work to consent to the living, growing idea of what morality should define as acceptable within that social dynamic, and if I'm correct in feeling strongly that people will never define specifically enough to just be done thinking about what parts of their morality serve their purposes least effectively, then it's worth discussing new bases of morality (even though it's always scary to think of implications we could miss with new forms of morality, people could always find ways to take advantage of rules we place either way)

Other words, people will never be able to describe what will protect the most complexity in each situation with one blanket statement, but if people can agree that complexity is the actual goal (which, the definition of that complexity and the method to achieving it are what I'm proposing my ideas towards) Then we have a basis for a general morality

Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, from my perspective, seem to base morality on the inherent value of being a human. That makes sense since that's who it's for, but if we get to define what humans are, we easily get to tell people how to live. We easily get to say that there are certain things we are allowed to keep them from doing specifically because it's our moral duty to protect them as humans (not developing minds). There's nothing in the inherentness of being a certain type of species that describes how to protect the outliers of the group, which is partially why I find it important to think about some new ideas for morality

Our basis of law, on another hand, is primarily protecting society. That's fair, but ultimately, if we protect society to the point of killing the development of eccentric or unconventional ideas that have negative impacts but are over all good for society (Example, if we made talking about socialism illegal -- even if you believe it's a bad concept -- we'd be killing discussions that are important and potentially contribute something useful), and we are more than defeating the point of human civilization, I feel, because we are now both forcing people to be part of our societies (which is the part I am in disagreement with the most) and providing them with societies that don't even allow them to reach their potential through the most possible experimentation (which is hard to do, fair, but something never to stop striving for)

There's a lot of implications to the ideas I'm presenting (For example, there's no way we could tell unmarried non-parent-being people not to do any drugs at their own home) because it describes a social system where people are allowed to do whatever doesn't affect anyone's view of people in general or their ability to accomplish their goals.
I believe this freedom to do things that aren't necessarily beneficial (maybe even destructive to one's self) is still experimentation that people need to be allowed to engage in to fully develop themselves
And, I guess, I'm attempting to go about this by asking people's reaction to this concept