So many ethics debates end with sanity checks. If you read any book espousing a particular ethic, such as Kantian or Consequentialist, the author will often rebut other ethics by taking them to their logical conclusion. They will say something like, "Clearly this ethic is false because it justifies something that any sane person would find reprehensible." So, why not just construct an ethic based on sanity checks? At every point, just ask, "Is this something that any sane person would object to?" The collection of your answers then becomes your ethic.