There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence

You stated here: "Going with your statement about Bentham and the principle of utility, he shows the relationship called the Hedonistic Clause. In this he does show that there is not always a moral consequence for human action."I see that you also cited Bentham in your post to support your claim on this subject but nowhere from reading Bentham did I get the message he also thinks that there is no possibility for human action without moral consequences. I believe you must have mistaken this explanation of the hedonistic calculus for a support of it from his side. So If human action as you stated does not necessarily need to follow by a moral consequence then what do we think about when we perform acts? Most of the time do acts and do not think about a moral consequence, we just do or at least if we do our brain process that stage so fast that we did not even realize it but whether we realize it or not we still do it. Every action we do has a moral consequence. If we think about it this way for example in the reading John Stuart Mill titled " Utilitarianism" he states that (paraphrasing)rightness and wrongness depend on the results it produces so therefore, he states that the foundation to morality is happiness and that based on that a person perform an action because they want to obtain a result; now that result whether it is good or bad we do not know but the person themselves know because they made the assessment in their brain already. For example let's talk about cigarettes/smoking, a person that smoke in a room filled with children. Let's analyze this hypothetical example, why would a person smoke cigarettes in a room fill with children knowing that cigarettes are harmful, detrimental to your health and cause all kind of health problems. That person obviously had to think about it someway somehow but still decided to go on and smoke the cigarettes why because to them after assessing the act they did not see anything wrong with doing so. Now you and I we see something wrong with it whether right or wrong that person does not care but that does not mean that there isn't a moral consequence to this act because in fact there is. Now we can even go further with this by saying that when that person saw the children coughing they felt obligated to stop smoking and the end result was that they stop smoking in the room as to harm the children because they realize that their action had a moral consequence to it. Now, author John Stuart Mills states that happiness is the foundation to morality. Meaning that everything we do as to do with satisfying our happiness/interest and so on. so let's ask the question this way do we ever act in ways that would not satisfy our happiness/interest? If you respond yes, then I would like to know how. If you respond no, then you and I finally can agree on something. Continuing with Mill's essay on Utilitarianism; there is another point that I would like to put forth that he mentions in his reading. He speaks about life experience being related to morality in a way where we learn from our experiences so that means by learning we develop we grow and that we still have a lot to learn however, that implies that morality was always a part of a person's actions it never left. People will do acts to satisfy their own happiness if there is that one person that do something for the interest of all even better however the first person to benefit from the act will the person himself and when they are about to perform an action they do think about what will happen next if I do that or this. That process never escape their mind because they know that an act needs an actor and following an act there is a consequence whether right or wrong is not the issue because what we concerned about is the fact that there is a moral consequence determining if it is right or wrong comes after. Another point I want to mention that John Stuart Mills made in his essay:" ...all rational creatures go out upon the sea of life with their minds made up on the common questions of right and wrong...." that segment right there I take to mean that we all consider morality when we perform an act and we all know that with our action there will be a moral consequence and if we don't know we question ourselves to find out. In order words we investigate what we don't know so that we know in the future. Then, Mill goes on and say finishing his statement: "...as long as foresight is a human quality, it is to be presumed they will continue to do." I take this segment as human beings have the ability to provision for the future meaning that they think ahead into the future therefore, when they act they consider the question of what will happen if I do this or that? And this is related exactly to my point of there is no possibility of human action without moral consequence because human beings have the capacity to do something and think about the what if question and the what happens next questions. And so it is.