I declare that the (unknown but correct) goal of morality is to satisfy the maximum number of goals for all goal-setting entities (satisfaction as judged by the individual goal-setters themselves).
It is clear, concise, objective, and deriving the consequences of this declaration leads directly to our current intuitive beliefs about morality.
The specific goals have absolutely no relevance except insofar as they affect other goals. Murder or maiming another is obviously bad (i.e. by definition) because it pretty much guarantees that the other entity’s goals will go unsatisfied.
I challenge anyone to present a moral issue whose current state of play is not correctly analyzed by extending this goal (note that I am not saying solved — since the total ramifications of many acts are crucially dependent upon circumstances and unknown — but that this definition gives us a much more concrete handle on it).
(edited 20100526T13:53 to add a tag of utilitarianism due to comments)