Uppon some farther contemplation of this subject, I came to conclusion that deontological ethics is way to go for describing choices and making moral codexes for groups of people, with a little bit of consequecialism to solve few dilemas. It is much easier to follow for vast majority of people, much better transparency, same laws for all regardless of group membership. And by genetics and long moral experience of human kind, we intuitivaly can assign right moral values in most common circumstances.
I’m not serendering my GSML theory by all means. GSML can give us some insides on nature and evolution of morals and ethics (may vary in definition for some) in group social settings. Although it might be fairly accurate in description of nature of the beast, it is rather counter intuitive. I have to admit, I’m often lost in it, and I don’t like the conclusions very much. When I put logic into it, it makes fairly good sense. It might need some polishing here and there, but whatever examples I throw against it I can fairly fast understand conseqences analizing the past in terms of benefits and asign right or wrong. The problem is when analizing current events, without clear outcome yet, one canot conclud if moral choice is right or wrong. How can one give a moral values to group members if right or wrong will be decided in 100 years, maybe, lol.