Ok, ok, I'll bite.
List the ironies YOU see and I will deal with them. Don't just tell someone to fix the discrepancies that they, themselves, haven't noticed. If someone can't see those things, then YOU need to show them what they are.
He asked you to list the levels of irony you can find in your post. He already knows them all, because he knows his irony. He wants to see you find it on your own too.
1) The morality we have been using is based on right and wrong, yes, but subjective ethics have evolved beyond dualism. Since ethics is meant to be the study of morality, then there MUST be some kind of morality that exists beyond right and wrong.
That's a given. I don't think anybody who's over 16 years of age doesn't realise that there can be a non-dual morality.
2) Situational ethics studies the various factors in a situation. It states that the end may justify the means, in terms of consequence, and that the ethics of a situation can be decided by the agape resulting from its factors. Situational ethics is a step towards ethics without right or wrong, due to its contrast against absolutism.
That's also obvious to anyone who has ever seen or been in a situation that wasn't morally obvious. Same as the whole old chestnut of: "is killing people okay? - No", "what if you could kill Hitler before he kills thousands?" etc.
3) In order to consider all factors in a situation - including the sense of ethics of each individual - a process must exist to help in generating a conclusion (in other words, a decision as to what should be done in response to that situation after considering all factors).
Usually done instinctively. The core of our social morality is hard-wired genetically, then the rest is learned through social contact.
4) Two situations which are exactly the same should generate the same conclusion. This conclusion, thus, would be absolute per that situation. However, there is still the chance that there would be different conclusions for each. This problem is what I call situational absolutism. This invalidates the conclusion reached, making said conclusion "unethical".
Both conclusions are incorrect. Remember to take subjectivity into account. Every person will have a "correct" solution to a situation, and these are allowed to vary same as our moral codes vary from person to person. Thus, your idea of there being an absolute is false, for any situation, so long as you take into account more than one person's moral view of it. Unless you think you could find a statistically most accurate solution that would fit closest to the moral solution for the majority of people. Which is bullshit, because morality cannot be bent like that, it's not maths.
And don't even get me started on the fact that the "level of correctness" may be uncertain for every single person, as moral dilemmas tend to make people take the best solution that is easy to achieve, rather than the best solution they can think of. And even the best solution they can think of may still not be the best solution they could think of given the right time/circumstances. So basically, you put together a lot of assumptions that are based on simplifications of the problem, which means your conclusions are simply flawed.
1) The secret to creating a non-dualistic morality may lie in the studying of the cause and effect of various situations.
As I said, there is no secret. Everybody here would agree that in some situations what is bad and what is good may be more complex than how we normally see it. And at that point the choice of how to react is simply the question of how dedicated we are to adhering to our principles. In a simplified example, a person who considers killing others for any reason as wrong, and believes they themselves should never kill a person might or might not murder Hitler if they had the chance. This would be a moral struggle without a clear cut answer, and the result depends on the person and the circumstances.
2) By doing this, we can create conclusions based on those consequences (effects).
So if the effect is either the death of 2 people or the death of just 1, you would suggest a pragmatic solution? Because that would imply you'd need a common denominator in order to judge which solution would have the "best" effects. In other words, you'd have to boil everything down to one currency and compare by it. Do you believe that calculating the value of human life in currency
is morally right? Because that's basically what you would need to use. Which in itself is considered morally wrong for many people. And if you use a calculation method that is morally wrong for some, in order to come up with the morally best solution to a situation, means you're doing it wrong.
3) Since we wish for the conclusions to be free from absolutism, they must not be based on the positivity or negativity of consequences.
That would mean pure pragmatism. Are you aiming to tell us that maximising efficiency in everything does not necessarily have to mean the most morally pleasing solution? Because I'm sure everyone here is aware of that.
4) The "process" we use for creating said conclusions must be free from the problem known as situational absolutism.
Again, you're basically saying that in order to establish the best process of finding the best solution we'd have to abandon all forms of morality. Absolute good and evil, positivity and negativity etc. Are you not seeing the problem here? You've originally set out to find the moral "right". Now you're concluding that to find the best moral "right" you must not take any morality into account.
5) Non-dualistic morality, in conclusion, must not only be free from absolutism, but must also not contradict itself.
Which is what you just did. A moral system that cannot allow subjective morality, personal choice, or absolute values.
I don't see how much plainer I can make this. I do not know why my "heart" causes me to take actions that have nothing to do with absolutes of right and wrong. I just base those actions on the effect I wish to see from the cause. But this is irrelevant, seeing as we're not judging me - we're judging the situation and each individual in response to the situation. An individual's sense of ethics is just a factor - it isn't the situation's core.
You claimed to be an INFP. Let me ask you then, do YOU know what that means? Means that there are other people, like me, who are for example INTJ. I Think where you Feel, and Judge where you Perceive. My method of understanding things is thus different than yours. And still you don't understand that some people might have trouble understanding and following your line of thought? Maybe if you stop being a self-serving idiot it will come to you, someday.
But for now, from what I understood from your ranting, you set out to give an example of reaching a good moral system, did a bunch of simplifications to moral perceptions and behaviours, derived a bunch of conclusions from false assertions, most of which are imho common knowledge to majority of people (even if they cannot understand you because of how messed up your methods of conveying your thoughts are), at which point you derived at a final conclusion which directly contradicts what you supposedly initially set out to do. That's how it looks to me, Krest.
All in all, this seems to me like a typical example of a pseudo-intellectual university blabber. Smarter people have been going over this before already, Krest. So I doubt you'll get to any conclusions that have not already been either debunked or established. So as much as you can entertain yourself with these thoughts, they ultimately serve no purpose.
I think your hamartia lies in your inability to discern the difference between "the morally right action" and "the right thing to do in this situation". And here I'll rock your whole world darling when I tell you, these may be completely different. I, for example, do not think that killing anyone, ever, is the morally right thing to do. But I do think that killing Hitler before WW2 (man I hate this generic example, but let's roll with it) might have been the right thing to do. Even though morally wrong. See what I did there? Moral absolutism, that doesn't affect the pragmatic decision making based on the best outcome. Have fun with that train of thought.
Also, I should probably mention that there is no "morality". Every person has several types of morality, genetic, social, emotional, and so on, add pragmatism on top of it and then you get a severely complicated and entwined system where several "right" solutions may appear, each from a different type of the morality types we all posses. These solutions then compete and we weigh them against one another. This is the very reason why we have moral dilemmas in the first place. And there is no clear system of establishing which to go with, as they are all correct in their own way. The final solutions we take depend purely on our personal traits and how much trust we put and heed we pay to each system.