Having options is something which is most desirable by all humans.
All humans desire to have many options in life.
Life without options tends to be a bad life, since people who have no desirable options available to them tend to suffer.
Therefore, increasing number of options is most desirable.
So anything which increases number of options people have is morally good.
But to achieve equality between people, everyone must have equal amount of options available to him.
Hence the term "greatest equal options".
For example,
I have an option to eat sugar. I also have an option not to eat sugar.
Those are in total 2 options.
You have those same options.
Your options dont contradict to mine, so we can both have those options, we can both have any of the 2 options, greatest equal number of options.
If sugar was banned, we would only have 1 option, which is to not eat sugar.
Since allowing sugar increases number of options we have, it follows that allowing sugar is morally good, where making sugar mandatory or banning it is morally bad.
So anything which increases number of options to the greatest amount possible is morally good, where things which decrease options are morally bad.
This moral system still needs to be tested for how well it handles things like abortions and refusing to reproduce, because I like moral systems which make abortion look good,
although its gonna be difficult with this particular moral system which seems to be promoting the creation of life to increase number of options by increasing number of people.
