let me preface this with a compliment as it is well written and therefore is a rare treat to read. Also, you're a bastard for using words whose definition I had to look up. Again, another rare treat.
Moral dogmatism(MD) versus moral relativism(MR). Such a combative perspective. Are not these perspectives MD & MR polarities that ignore an infinity of variations in between?
Metaphysics ~ here is a word that I believe has been twisted into a false meaning in the modern age and limited to religion or spiritualism.
Meta =1. denoting a change of position or condition.
"metamorphosis"
- denoting position behind, after, or beyond.
"metacarpus" - denoting something of a higher or second-order kind.
"metalanguage"
Physics(meaning) is pretty straight forward. So meta-physics, to me, merely denotes that which is behind, after, beyond, higher than that which is physical. In this sense studying electromagnetism is metaphysics or even the atom is metaphysics especially if you dispense with the Bohr model of the atom and favor those arguments that speak not of particles but of field modulations as I tend to.
I digress.
Yes, neither works because both are extremist perspectives. In one you are bound by "duty" to dogmatism and as such it is entirely inflexible' in the other, it is all about the consequences and one's relation to them which is far too flexible and can be dependent upon mood, either yours or the group affected.
"everyone has a different idea of what would be good for them" ~ morality is not necessarily about what is good for you, it is about the development of a particular system of ethics. Many times I take the path of what is right morally based on universal religious concepts but there is flexibility as well. As a general rule I do not lie, but I also do not tell the whole truth especially if it doesn't serve the other well, and when it comes to those that position themselves as an enemy to me, then I have no obligation to be truthful, especially if they may be inclined to use the truth against me. (Funny thing is, that comes from an Islamic Hadith put forth by the prophet Muhammad)
Doing what is moral does not always benefit you in the short term and therefore may seem not good for you, but in the long term it can lend itself to character. Because I am known for a long time to be honest, people who know me trust me. In my being honest I have had to suffer the errors of my ways, in the short term, by admitting to them rather than lying about them. But in that short term came suffrage long term came gain.
I personally do believe that there is a 'universal morality' that is reasonable and rational, does not require duty and is not necessarily about the consequences, well, at least the short term more immediately felt consequences. It is flexible, organic and fosters mental and physical well being over the long run. It is universal because they tend to be the core teachings of most religions(though not all) and are often referred to as the 'graces'.
I look forward to reading about what you call "Moral Ecology". Please be sure to let me know when you publish it. Though I do follow you, I won't necessarily see the post.
Cheers
RE: An Introduction to Moral Ecology