Who are the proper subjects of moral consideration?

After my cursory look, my impression/assumption was universality in terms of reconciling absolute and relative morality positions.

Is your impression ,from a more broad reading of his work than mine, that Dr. Katz is aiming for universalized in the sense of bringing full adherence of the view to a population?

His theories have great potential to be dogmas based upon grand assumptions from modelizing societies. Social and moral models may be adopted by societies: and they will not be as passive as a rock or a cliff as it is the case with physics. Societies will adopt and react and turn the model into something else. This is why I plan to be independent of any dogmas or any potential dogmas.
And yes, Dr. Katz intends for his ideal rationalised theory to become universal, because it is "ideal" and "rationalized." He intends or fantasizes a revolution in the field of moral philosophy just as Galileo's contribution did in the field of pure and applied sciences. He goes onto say in his own words

I agree that could be problematic.

At the very least I may be able to use it to rationalize by pre-existing beliefs regarding morality.

I have no problem with that. And I don't mean to be offensive to anyone, especially RL or Katz. I'm just laying out what I think of it, basically giving a needed feedback, as is needed for any theory.

Just look at all the religions of the world that attempted to teach its adherents morality. You'll get the same with any man-made society groupings, because humans are not robots, and people follow their own perceptions of what their religious' teachings are. Just observe what has happened to the Catholic church.

Morality cannot be controlled.

No offense taken on my part.
Any theory needs that!
I would contend that with an ethical one, the stakes are even higher.

In keeping with the anthropomorphism,
can it be educated?

Education does not result in moral practice as have been evidenced from the moral teachings of all religions.

We have seen religious' leaders guilty of immoral behavior and actions. Moral behavior is a personal choice, and not necessarily from education.

I'm not sure with the ambiguous term used, and that is "educated." It might be as well be used synonymously with brainwashing. What is fair is to give each individual the tools to come to their own conclusion. In a way, I see morality as a learned sense.

So where to draw the lines between :

providing some one the tools needed to reach a conclusion,
informing someone about morality,
strongly encouraging belief via social pressures,
brain washing,
etc.
?

I agree; morality is a "learned" sense, and it doesn't matter which culture, religion, country, or family one comes from.

Good question.
From observing reality, social and cultural consensus uses social approval and disapproval, and safe to say this is very effective. Where to draw the line is largely decided by the society one lives in, and how liberal the social and cultural values are in such a society. What's curious about the nature of the moral climate today is the kinds of things that are enforced nowadays and the kinds of things in which people are allowed to have liberty.
I don't have any absolute answer for such a question for I can only speak relative to the experiences I have relative to the society that I was brought up in.

At the end of the day we can all agree that we each have a point of moral view that we are seeking to have enforced in some fashion to others in society, and we are seeking to compel other people to believe. Then the question becomes, Is our moral point of view legitimate? Is it appropriate to have this forced?

Would you consider two moral views to be equivalent if they led to all of the same outcomes? That is to say if holding one view had you behave in the same way as having the other view. The same behavior, but for different reasons/rationalizations.
I for one wouldn't feel compelled to "convert" someone if I knew that our views were only different in that respect.

When I think in regards to equivalency, I think of a value system or to be specific, to what degree of relative value should one ought to put upon each? There isn't exactly an objective numerical value system to really compare and contrast, or at least any such systems that I'm aware of. You might put more value in your methodology over another methodology, where both leads to the same conclusion. Only you can answer that.
But if you really think both methodologies are equal in aspect to the conclusion derived, then it makes sense to see that you wouldn't feel compelled to "convert" someone.
In the philosophical context, I'd put more value in the methodology that uses epistemological proofs of empirical existence and logic, but then that wouldn't lead to the same conclusion now would it?

The major problem with "morality" is how it plays out in our politics. They "try" to enforce their perception of morality on others without any regard to the other person's decisions.

Yes even in democracy there are instances of that happening. It's normal in the aspect of human behavior, however an impartial, rational observer would disprove.

Getting back to the problem of compulsion to "convert".
If there was a strong reconciliation of consequentialism with some absolute morality, be it virtue ethics or any other.
I know that I would feel more confident in holding such a belief.
I feel in a way that now both sides are looking at the issue from two different, unjustified positions. Utilitarianism has a method with an arbitrary goal of value. Absolute morality starts with arbitrary goals and is tasked with reconciling how those goals should relate to each other.
If the two positions were reconciled upon value, then I would feel that that value is less arbitrary.
Justified by agreement from more than one "observer", if you'll pardon the analogy.

We have many varieties of observer disapproval, but that will never translate into changing humans to a higher moral standard. Between the mass killers, wars, rape, robbery, political advocacy, embezzelers, perpetraters of fraud, and selling snake oil are all part and parcel of the human experience. That will never change no matter what philosophical theories are developed towards morals.

I truly am no expert on any branch of philosophy but rather what I do is study the work of as many specialist as I can in many subjects. When a person studies as much as I do and has memory and learning issues I would not expect much of a return as far as coherently describing what I have learned or should I say studied.

I have invited Dr Katz to join in and hopefully he will but it may be a day or two.