I believe in a true moral field that pervades reality, but I don't believe that "good" or "not good" can be expresssed in a finite sentence in some human understandable language. I believe the complexities require one to attend to the context as well as the action and so on. There's very few cases where I'd find it good to kill some human no matter the ends; but even just listening to someone patiently with attention instead of begging off due to being busy can be quite important to get right; these ordinary daily issues are where a clear feeling for the ends you live for and a feeling for your own actual physical limits on being patient or having enough energy for various tasks are useful. And I believe that two perspectives I find very useful are missing from many moral analyses: 1) my decisions change who I am, so the reason not to murder is not a strictly utilitarian balancing of the person's likely future actions, but also includes the change to my habits and tolerances, and 2) in the prisoner's dilemma, there is nothing that special about me being me - I could as easily be someone else, so when I am deciding I am picking between a world where x% of people make choice "cooperate" or x% of people make choice "defect."

This latter approach also extends very nicely to probabilistic methods - if I pass garbage on the beach, I can pick it up with probability Y%, and adjust Y so that if most a lot of people make the same choice, then all the garbage will be picked up.