This is just a question, and a relatively serious one….
Is there a persuasive basis for any ethical position, that is not already an ethical position?
For example Utilitarianism promotes happiness or contentment as the good which should be aimed for. But deciding to aim for happiness is already an ethical decision, putting the idea of happiness ahead of ideas of wisdom, power, love etc…. Making the target the greatest good of the greatest number is also an ethical decision. We might equally claim that it is better to make life good for a particular few (if you still wanted to benefit the greatest number, we could argue that these people could then have the freedom to improve things for everyone else). Arguments from fairness are likewise based on an ethical choice in favour of fairness, there is no intrinsic logic to this position and indeed many societies violate it as part of the way they work.
Monotheistic people often argue that ethics cannot exist without the commands of God, yet obeying God beyond everything else is already an ethical decision. God may not want it…. It could be said to be a tyranny, if you took another ethical position. If God threatens those who do not obey, the position assumes violence to be the basis of ethics.
Ethical systems based upon descriptions of how people behave, is just saying what they do, not providing an argument for its ethical base or superiority, beyond ‘what we do is what we should do’.
Even saying that ethical behavior should contribute to survival is not useful as it implies survival is the ultimate good, to which all else must be sacrificed. Survival of whom and what?
Likewise arguing that ethical actions should have ethical results is also a statement which relies on ethics, as it is clearly possible to argue that some actions are good even if they result in what we might define as evil events.
So do you know of any basis for ethics which would seem to get beyond this problem of the initial decision?