Moral systems can be based on utilitarian materialism, which is exactly what you're describing.

Everything we do is for the purpose of spreading our genes -> only what does this is considered moral

This is utilitarian materialism.

I have a correction to make:
Earlier I said "I am an idealist."
That was a mistake. I am not an idealist, I am a dualist.

That might be the source of the confusion.

You explained your position and I firmly believe it's materialist.

I'm not getting tied up in what you call yourself.

Do we agree that materialism is a term with a standard definition

You gave me the definition of materialism, which is a broad philosophy. I agree with the definition you gave, and firmly believe it applies here.

Okay, excellent.

You're reducing human existence to the material, aka, the spread of genes.

I do not believe that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions.

I believe that matter is ONE fundamental substance in nature along with the imaterial

So you may not be a materialist but what you're articulating is a firmly materialist position.

So consciousness is its own reality

And is not reducible to matter

Ideas for example the number zero is not reducible to matter

Materialists wouldn't argue that 0 is reducible to matter though.

Well materialism posits that everything is reducible to matter so to speak

A materialist would argue that we perpetuate our species through chemical impulses and morality is only based on what is expedient to that end.

right

In other words exactly what you're saying.

Have you met a materialist before? Lol I've never heard one say that

I've heard it a lot

"Materialist" usually is not someone who adheres to a strict philosophy.

Well in any case I think I laid out my case for why I can't possibly be a materialist based on my belief about reality

@The Big Oof my ip is 12345678910

You don't have to be a materialist but you outlined a firmly materialist belief for existence.

I mean perhaps what you dislike about my moral system is that it doesn't deny the material world because you do

Many moral systems deny the material world

I don't like or dislike it. I'm just recognizing it for what it is.

Reality is comprised of matter and immaterial. Both elements are real and I reject neither.

I choose to recognize the value of matter and you choose to see this as a rejection of the imaterial

Your moral system is based on an impetus for reproduction. Given that we live in a world where we can reduce this to chemicals at the most reduced scale, the only logical conclusion from that position is materialism.

Absurd

If you ignore the material aspect to claim you aren't a materialist that seems like sophistry to me.

The only logical conclusion of my moral system is not materialism haha

The way you described it is exactly materialist. At this point I'm just repeating myself.

A good moral system should be able to account for the material world and argue based on it.

You don't have to deny the existence of immaterial reality to believe in my moral system

@Snakeisninja Is it ethical for a person to reproduce if their children will have serious diseases or disabilities?