We have not been talking about what is and is not within the realm of being judged and/or evaluated by any given ethics.
We have been talking about what *is* and is not a included in the concept ethics, i.e., what are the proper units subsumed under the concept “ethics.”
Your previous post about ethics being too broad was an explicit attempt to find some actions not covered by ethics, to establish the principle that ethics is not universally about action. You need to attack the universality of ethics because only then could you move on to the next stage of your argument, that some ethical systems are not ethics because they are concerned with actions that are not ethical. Why wait until then to cut down your argument with the charge of begging the question (for a second time) when it is so much more reality-oriented to insist that the subject matter of ethics is all actions of all men?
Furthermore, you are attempting to establish a false dichotomy between the kinds of actions ethics is derived from and the kinds of actions ethics is applied to. As there is no such basis to divide actions in ethical and non-ethical, or before-ethics and after-ethics, this line of argument is a dead end.
I have skipped a step. Ethics is about principles for acting, but the principles themselves are abstracted from actual actions and the thoughts that caused them. For ethical principles to be universal (to be principles at all) all actions are integrated into ethics.
I just stated that your description includes ALL subjects involving man and man’s actions. If what you stated was true, all the subjects I named would be subdivisions of ethics, but they are not.
Ah, but they are all the raw materials out of which ethical systems are built.
An abstraction is a form of human classification by which man integrates the evidence provided by his senses. Man rises above the perceptual level by integrating his percepts into concepts, his concepts into principles, his principles into sciences, and all of his sciences into a philosophy.
All of his sciences.
(So there. My quote is better than your than your quote. 
)
subsumes means “to take up into a more inclusive classification.” dictionary.com.
E.g., the class “animal” subsumes rabbits, snakes, birds, fish, men, etc., i.e., all these objects are a certain kind of animal. (while the class excludes objects such as rocks, dirty, trees, plants shrubs etc)
the class furniture subsumes tables, chairs, lamps, beds, bookcases etc, i.e.e., all these objects are a certain kind of furniture. (while the class excludes objects such as clothes, appliances, drapery, toilets etc. )
the class philosophy does not subsume: history, economics, business, applied engineering, anthropology, psychology, construction and all vocational arts, i.e., all these objects are not a certain kind of philosophy.
History is not a certain kind of philosophy. Psychology is not a certain kind of philosophy. Economics is not a certain kind of philosophy. etc. etc.
All those fields I named are not distinctive forms and/or kinds of philosophy. If we were defining any of those fields we would not say their genus is philosophy.
There is a difference in saying a.) men are guided fundamentally by philosophy, and b.) that all fields are a kind of philosophy.
Or in your case that all these fields are a kind of ethics, given that you stated ethics is the subject of all men and all mens actions.
“Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man’s relationship to existence” and it subsumes all of those other fields because it deals in true fundamentals common to all fields. Existence, the methods and means to knowledge, the methods and means of values are all fundamentals. There are different sets of fundamentals philosophers have claimed to discover, and those sets are all called philosophies and their various parts are all systems of metaphysics, epistemology and of ethics. The genus of special fields of study is knowledge, and epistemology studies knowledge in the abstract to discover valid means of knowing and inferring. The genus of all of the fields they study is metaphysics. The genus of all actions of historians, businessmen, engineers, etc… is ethics.
The question is what are the proper units of the concept ethics, i.e., what cognitive purpose does it serve, what does it integrate into the concept, and what does it differentiate, i.e., what does not qualify as a member of the concept?
Just because Kant is a man, and he wrote and/or spoke about something (writing and/or speaking being actions), does not make what he wrote and/or spoke about a certain kind of ethics.
Nor does the fact that Kant’s work can be evaluated by any given ethical code make his works a certain kind of ethics.
Kant claimed to discover fundamentals that applied to thought and action. He was a philosopher with a metaphysics, an epistemology and an ethics.
The referents of ethics are normative principles about how man should act.
The cognitive purpose of ethics is to integrate into a noncontradictory whole a set of principles about how man should act.
Ethics integrates all actions of all men into principles for action.
Ethics omits actions of the inanimate, or of plants and animals, and non-conscious aspects of man’s behavior.
