A few propostitions or assertions to get us going...

Let's assume, with good reason I feel, that there is no moral giver. I leave it to others to prove that this is not the case. Until that proof arrives, we'll move on with this basic assumption.

Along the same lines, I propose that for all people capable of comprehending the questions, if we ask them about the relative goodness of a sufficiently large enough set of possible moral hypothetical situations we will end up with a different set of answers for every single person.

Such a set of questions might start with:
Is it right (or moral or good) to kill 1 person to save 2?
Is it right to kill 1 person to save 3?
...
Is it right to kill 1 person to save 100,000,000?
...
If you only could save either your child or your spouse, who would you save?
...and so on.

So long as we ask enough questions of all people surveyed, we'll never get the exact same set of answers...or at least I contend it is so unlikely to be possible for a sufficiently large set of questions as to not be worth considering as being meaningful.

Another way of putting this, might just be to say that "goodness" is subjective. Everybody wants something different and it is almost by definition that what a person wants is the same things as that which is "good" in their opinion.

Let's call that basic assertion 1 (ignoring the zero assertion that there is no god): "The goodness of any particular desire is subjective"

Next, let's define an "ideal world" to be the world in which an individual had everything they wanted. This is the maximum "goodness" any individual could ever hope to have in their world. Your perfect wold is different from mine, and almost certainly all other person's perfect worlds as well. We'll call this assertion 2: ideal world = maximum subjective goodness

Third, let's assume that for a sufficiently large set of individuals, it is not possible to have all persons achieve 100% of what they want. It might not even be possible with as few as 2 people, depending on the first 2 people in the set. This is the Rolling Stones assertion...you can't always get what you want. Assertion 3: conflict is inevitable. I feel safe in this assertion so long as I can point to any other individual in existence that doesn't want exactly what I do.

Now that we have established that:
1) goodness is subjective
2) ideal world = maximum subjective goodness
3) conflict is inevitable

I propose that given these things, the "best" world we can hope to achieve is the one where the most people get the most of what they want. Or, rather the "best" possible world is the one where we maximize the goodness for us all. We can't all have everything we want, but how can we all get the most possible?

I'll blather on about that idea in a future post.