Thank you for being so ready to treat this topic with your criticism. It means that you understand the theory presented, and you find fault with it.

My theory on the same topic never got even one critical comment of merit on its philosophical content. I asked the readership in several places to comment on it, and the critical comments I replied to and satisfactorily defended against them, but they were very small in number and not much thought put into them. The other type of criticism had nothing to do with the topic; it had to do with the quality of writing, and with one syntactic error.

This lack of proper criticism against my paper means two things to me:
1, Some readers did not understand it
2. Some readers understood it and found no fault with it.

I don't think 1. had much to do with the general lack of responses.

You know, guys, if you agree with some theory that your peer drew up, and you find it original and true, you could say that, you don't have to state that agreement by not saying anything at all. A little positive agreement and expressing it would go down well; just as well as a harsh criticism against something you find faults with.

For your reference, the theory on ethics I wrote can be found in two discussions, one in a short from, and one in a long form.

The long form:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10744/ethics-explained-to-smooth-out-all-wrinkles-in-current-debates-neo-darwinist-approach

The short form:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10903/shortened-version-of-theory-of-morality-some-objected-to-the-conversational-style-of-my-paper

Please note that my ethical theory is not one that prescribes ethics, or behviour, but one that describes the formation and the dual nature of ethics, which then serves as an explanation and solution to the problem of ethics.

I encourage you, my readers, to read my papers, and put comments regarding the theory itself. Positive or negative criticism are both accepted and welcome, and most likely responded to.