I'm working on an article in which I attempt to defend a "unified" theory of morality that takes insights from all the most popular moral theories in Western philosophy. The main principle of this moral theory is the following:
The best action is always the one we have most reason to believe will maximize the total long-term quality of sentient life.
Is this principle best described as consequentialist, deontological, or neither? Or perhaps is this question subjective? If this is flagged as subjective, I guess that would also answer my question.
Update: I know the principle seems consequentialist at first sight, but my point is that by defining what's right not in terms of how good the actual consequences of an action are, but in terms of our reasons to believe those consequences would be good, I am not appealing directly to consequences. To use the terminology from the SEP, I define "the Good" in terms of consequences, but "the Right" in terms of our present beliefs, and I defend that "the Right" has priority over "the Good". This all sounds quite deontological, which makes me wonder if it would be reasonable to say this philosophy is perhaps a hybrid deontic-consequentialist philosophy.