> For Socrates to have drunk poison to please others arguably reduces him to a moral relativist <

It’s very clear from the corpus of Socratic dialogues that he wasn’t not a relativist. He did not take the hemlock to please others, but because he thought it was the right thing to do.

>> Their attitude of "just accept that which you can't change" comports too conveniently with debt slavery and consumerist society, and seems just as psychologically convenient of a way to ignore one's role as destroyer of the environment <<

If you truly cannot change something, what is the point of not accepting it? But we can change society, politics, and our treatment of the environment. The Stoics were very politically and socially involved.

> that which is moral is what you would adopt as a rule for everyone (because it propels the collective). I propose such supports the confirmation bias of the power majority in any body politic. <

You make Kant to sound like a collectivist, which he wasn’t. And Cicero never said any such thing. And how does the categorical imperative, exactly, support the power of the majority? Also, what’s wrong with the majority having power, which is the basis of democracy?