I believe that Hume's statement regarding conformation to the "common sentiments of mankind" is outdated. With globalization and intercultural development and communication, there are so many diverse "sentiments" that it is difficult to identify what exactly is right, wrong, or indeed common to everybody. I therefore do not believe that this statement can still be regarded as true in today's society.

Kant's statement regarding the universal law again may hold for humanity in general, but only because it is so individual. A rule that I would make the universal law for example would not be agreeable to a person from a different culture or with a different background. While the statement may therefore apply to each individual, it does not hold in terms of the general truth that Kant apparently applies to it.

Bentham, Hegal and Dewey appear to focus on human evolution for their assessment of wise, moral, or intelligent action. I therefore agree with Bentham, in that the greatest happiness...

It also separates society from religious or other specific ideals. Hegal in turn focuses directly on "right action" as a dynamic rather than static ideal. I agree, as right action cannot be specified universally, but should rather be addressed in a general way, as Hegal does. The same is true of Dewey's statement regarding conflict that impedes social advance. This philosopher also focuses on what benefits an evolving rather than static society. This evolution ideal sets society an actions that may be regarded as intelligent above specific moral or individual considerations.
Aquinas and Tilloch appear to focus their attention on the requirements of the transcendental in order to determine right or good actions. Perhaps this ideal would hold for religious communities, but it should also be kept in mind that some individuals are more religious than others. I therefore disagree with both these philosophers.