The passage of life is a social one where humans are immersed in experiences from the day they are born until the day they die.
Individuals at any point in time may be said to be not only the sum of their internalized experiences but also of the interpretations of those experiences the thoughts and ideas that arose from them.
This is why different persons can act in completely different ways within the same circumstances, each potentially believing that they are acting ethically (not everybody places the same weight on ethics as a factor in decision making).
We begin in a most malleable form - and we are most open to ideas and change - for we are students of the world. As we grow we become more rooted and we become more defined - some of us call this consistency.
The value of consistency is that the individual who practices it also seeks to practice his or her morale standpoint with consistency. The drawback is that any imperfections in a morale standpoint may grow more rigid as time goes by.
We as a species are still evolving and surely further answers shall come to the fore to fine-tune our understanding of the ethical.
To return to your question:
The pursuit of consistency need not only be one for those who have become so comfortable with their ethos that they would close their minds to new information.
The pursuit of consistency can be the seeking of a morale system that not only works well in one's dealings with self and others, but it can also work well in one's evaluations of others' actions with respect to the self and others.
The pursuit of consistency should extend to scaleablity - and seek to address the appropriate treatment of those of radically different perspectives on the matter, as well as those who have acted in breach. Is one's reactive action upon those of such actions righteous and is the nature of the reactive action worthy of the principles that are sought to be upheld (or is one merely exercising power)?
On a different level, the pursuit of being true to the self is also a desireable trait. Does society need to be so removed from the individual that it should take on an identity altoghether unhuman? Is nature such an unruly teacher that we should ignore the practice of millenia?
Nature may seem a beastly place where species make meals of each other. And yet most species can either be tamed when provided the appropriate environment within whch to thrive, or even display seemingly unexplainable acts of affection (including to those not of their kind).
What nature teaches us is that we need to practice a healthy degree of self-interest - a morale standpoint that spirals from the self and outwards through family, friends, colleagues, teams, society and beyond. The closer to self, the greater the personal interest at hand.
Which would seem to justify selfish acts at the expense of others - but again it need not be so. Again through the practice of self-interest it is in the interest of the self and those close to the self for one to benefit from the fruits of others. A barren tree bears few or poor fruits while it is the prosperous tree that bears a rich harvest.
Those with understanding of this principle, with self-interest at heart will seek to invest in the sowing of prosperity in those around him or her - thus investing towards a buffer of prosperity in an otherwise barren world (presuming a worst case scenario where few act with self-interest).
Others who act similarly are the selflessly charitable. These sacrifice from the self to better the lot of others. While the principle is admirable - they can do so at the expense of themselves and more-so - their legacy. their own prosperity may become compromised and worse - only a portion of their charity tends to get to where it is intended to get (presuming that the charitable do not practice their kindness close to home as a person with self-interest at heart might.
If a person is unwilling to guard the heart then the heart is vulnerable to suffering - and life will test that heart's ability to endure. Betrayal, deceit, ignorance - a spiralling descent into an abyss of one's own design. No ethical system is immune to being tested - but some standpoints are more liable to it than others.
To (loosely) abbreviate the above:
"To live a life of ethical correctness is to live with greatest respect to self as well as for others - with greatest consistency and in line with the beat of nature."
Not quite a formula - and I am not certain that such a thing could be translated into a formula - but the variables at play here would be: Consistency, Proximity to Self, Proximity to one's nature, and Prosperity.
I realize that this is not the kind of answer that you might have been expecting and I also realize that it is not the sort of answer that many would agree with. It is included for consideration.