1 2 and 3 on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality all seem OK to me.

I would classify the mapping you use between possible and actual actions to be one type of moral system.

Tim: "If rerunning the clock produces radically different moralities each time, the relativists would be considered to be correct."

Actually compassion evolved many different times as a central doctrine of all major spiritual traditions. See the charter for compassion. This is in line with my prediction that I made independently and being unaware of this fact until I started looking for it back in late 2007 and eventually finding the link in late 2008 with Karen Armstrong's book The Great Transformation.

Tim: "Why is it a universal moral attractor?" Eliezer: "What do you mean by "morality"?"

Central point in my thinking: that is good which increases fitness. If it is not good - not fit - it is unfit for existence. Assuming this to be true we are very much limited in our freedom by what we can do without going extinct (actually my most recent blog post is about exactly that: Freedom in the evolving universe).

from the Principia Cybernetica web: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap14.html#Heading14

"Let us think about the results of following different ethical teachings in the evolving universe. It is evident that these results depend mainly on how the goals advanced by the teaching correlate with the basic law of evolution. The basic law or plan of evolution, like all laws of nature, is probabilistic. It does not prescribe anything unequivocally, but it does prohibit some things. No one can act against the laws of nature. Thus, ethical teachings which contradict the plan of evolution, that is to say which pose goals that are incompatible or even simply alien to it, cannot lead their followers to a positive contribution to evolution, which means that they obstruct it and will be erased from the memory of the world. Such is the immanent characteristic of development: what corresponds to its plan is eternalized in the structures which follow in time while what contradicts the plan is overcome and perishes."

Eliezer: "It obviously has nothing to do with the function I try to compute to figure out what I should be doing."

Once you realize the implications of Turchin's statement above it has everything to do with it :-)

Now some may say that evolution is absolutely random and direction less, or that multilevel selection is flawed or similar claims. But reevaluating the evidence against both these claims by people like Valentin Turchin, Teilhard De Chardin, John Stewart, Stuart Kaufmann, John Smart and many others regarding evolution's direction and the ideas of David Sloan Wilson regarding multilevel selection, one will have a hard time maintaining either position.

<insert whiny comment about me fighting windmills> :-)