There is no such centralized place, no; I've alluded to my views in comments here and there over the past year or so, but haven't gone laid them out fully. (Then again, I'm a member of no movements that depend heavily on any ethical positions. ;)

Truth be told — and I haven't disguised this — my ethical views are not anywhere near completely fleshed-out. I know the general shape, I suppose, but beyond that I'm more sure about what I don't believe — what objections and criticisms I have to other people's views — than about what I do believe. But here's a brief sketch.

I think that consequentialism, as a foundational idea, a basic approach, is the only one that makes sense. Deontology seems to me to be completely nonsensical as a grounding for ethics. Every seemingly-intelligent deontologist to whom I've spoken (which, admittedly, is a small number — a handful of people here in LessWrong) has appeared to be spouting utter nonsense. Deontology has its uses (see Bostrom's "An Infinitarian Challenge to Aggregative Ethics", and this post by Eliezer, for examples), but there it's deployed for consequentialist reasons: we think it'll give better results. I've seen the view expressed that virtue ethics is descriptively correct as an account of how human minds implement morality, and (as a result) prescriptively valid as a recommendation of how to implement your morality in your own mind once you've decided on your object-level moral views, and that seems like a more-or-less reasonable stance to take. As an actual philosophical grounding for morality, virtue ethics is nonsense, but perhaps that's fine, given the above. Consequentialism actually makes sense. Consequences are the only things that matter? Well, yes. What else could there be?

As far as varieties of consequentialism go... I think intended and foreseeable consequences matter when evaluating the moral rightness of an act, not actual consequences; judging based on actual consequences seems utterly useless, because then you can't even apply decision theory to the problem of deciding how to act. Judging on actual consequences also utterly fails to accord with my moral intuitions, while judging on intended and foreseeable consequences fits quite well.

I tend toward rule consequentialism rather than act consequentialism; I ask not "what would be the consequences of such an act?", but "what sort of world would it be like, where [a suitably generalized class of] people acted in this [suitably generalized] way? Would I want to live in such a world?", or something along those lines. I find act consequentialism to be too often short-sighted, and open to all sorts of dilemmas to which rule consequentialism simply does not fall prey.

I take seriously the complexity of value, and think that hedonistic utilitiarianism utterly fails to capture that complexity. I would not want to live in a world ruled by hedonistic utilitiarians. I wouldn't want to hand them control of the future. I generally think that preferences are what's important, and ought to be satisfied — I don't think there's any such thing as intrinsically immoral preferences (not even the preference to torture children), although of course one might have uninformed preferences (no, Mr. Example doesn't really want to drink that glass of acid; what he wants is a glass of beer, and his apparent preference for acid would dissolve immediately, were he apprised of the facts); and satisfying certain preferences might introduce difficult conflicts (the fellow who wants to torture children — well, if satisfying his preferences would result in actual children being actually tortured, then I'm afraid we couldn't have that). "I prefer to kill myself because I am depressed" is genuinely problematic, however. That's an issue that I think about often.

All that seems like it might make me a preference utilitiarian, or something like it, but as I've said, I'm highly skeptical about the possibility or even coherence of aggregating utility across individuals, not to mention the fact that I don't think my own preferences adhere to the VNM axioms, and so it may not even be possible to construct a utility function for all individuals. (The last person with whom I was discussing this stopped commenting on Lesswrong before I could get hold of my copy of Rational Choice in an Uncertain World, but now I've got it, and I'm willing to discuss the matter, if anyone likes.)

I don't think it's obvious that all beings that matter, matter equally. I don't see anything wrong with valuing my mother much more than I value a randomly selected stranger in Mongolia. It's not just that I do, in fact, value my mother more; I think it's right that I should. My family and friends more than strangers; members of my culture (whatever that means, which isn't necessarily "nation" or "country" or any such thing, though these things may be related) more than members of other cultures... this seems correct to me. (This seems to violate both the "equal consideration" and "agent-neutrality" aspects of classical utilitarianism, to again tie back to the SEP breakdown.)

As far as who matters — to a first approximation, I'd say it's something like "beings intelligent and self-aware enough to consciously think about themselves". Human-level intelligence and subjective consciousness, in other words. I don't think animals matter. I don't think unborn children matter, nor do infants (though there are nonetheless good reasons for not killing them, having to do with bright lines and so forth; similar considerations may protect the severely mentally disabled, though this is a matter which requires much further thought).

Do these thoughts add up to a coherent ethical system? Unlikely. They're what I've got so far, though. Hopefully you find them at least somewhat useful, and of course feel free to ask me to elaborate, if you like.