Universal moral principles

One of our most thought provoking minds users @DivineMarquis has recently denied the existence of universal moral principles. But I disagree with my favorite dead french pervert. 

The ideas I'll espouse here are partially inspired by the Moral Landscape (a book by Sam Harris) Sam argues that quality of life can be pretty much objectively compared. (Anyone would rather live a life of joy success and love than a life of tragedy, failure and getting raped.)  

Because the rules of nature and psychology are universal it follows that different codes of behavior will predictably and consistently lead to different levels of living quality. These codes can then be mapped according to the highs (peaks) and lows (valleys) of quality they provide (hence Moral landscape) 

It is my belief that a universal code reaching the highest peak does exist. It is merely complex. But I don't claim to fully know it.

"Killing is wrong." For instance is to simple. Exceptions can be found for defense, euthanasia etc etc. But how about "Killing a good person without their consent is wrong unless it is in defense of something good."

Off course this requires a definition of good person which I would define as a person who has not violated the life liberty or property of a good person too much. (I am aware this is self referencing but it still works. And yes it makes government evil by definition, necessary evil is a thing)

Again this is complicated and difficult to put on a stone tablet but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But what about moral dilemmas?

Most moral dilemmas can be solved by my source and corruption ideas.

Source:

All people grant benefits to the world and impose bad things on the world. They are either a net source of good or a net source of evil. The goal of principles should be to make as many people as possible a net positive. For this reason things like beauty and studying are moral. It is especially moral to create moral children since they can do moral things themselves.

Corruption:

Most moral dilemma's like the trolley problem are designed to make doing the right thing (or not doing something bad) create a worse outcome. But these dilemma's never consider that crossing a line once makes it harder to be dogmatically principled or trusted in the future. What I'm saying is all of humanity has an inner monstrous side restrained only by principle and cowardice. 

So I believe the corruption to the individual and society is worse than the cost of having principles.