I think you can skip over a lot of the introductory stuff and get to the point. It covers a lot of territory, but none of it in enough depth to be useful.

As to the main proposal, I am attracted to the idea that morality is importantly related to what we can rationally agree to, so I’m kind of an audience for this kind of proposal. When your first offer your account of morality, I thought you were underestimating the amount of moral disagreement there is, and that demanding actual agreement about moral principles is not a viable standard. But, later it seemed like you thought morality only concerns what there is consensus about, which is why you say the trolley problem is not a moral dilemma at all — there’s no agreement here, and morality is based on rational agreement. I think this just puts too much outside the scope of morality which we would intuitively include within it.

Anyways, at one point you seem to say morality is based on hypothetical imperatives. You might. E interested in this paper by Philippa Foot.