Just saw this post now. Interesting thread. I just wanted to note that humans generally have a strong instinct towards searching for universally applicable truths, even at the risk of extreme reductionism (see, I just did it myself right there). In statistics and physics, we "simplify" things and make certain assumptions that allow our calculations to become easier (i.e. "assume a normal distributional curve" or "assume that the surface has no friction"). I think that our approach to moral and philosophical questions is much the same; our "universal truths" are often predicated on certain assumptions that don't always hold true.
I've met a few people who genuinely believed that scientific advancement is bringing us closer to identifying a universal moral code that can be objectively quantified. I don't know where they get off with this absurd belief-- if we can't even find a grand unifying theory for physics, I don't see why we should be able to find one for ethics.
A universal code of ethics and morality, if ever fully transcribed, will rule very broadly in order to establish a consensus that still allows the use of logic, intuition, and reasoning that have guided our morality for so long. As such, it will likely fall short of the current philosophy-based morality that we currently use as a starting place, but such forms of morality will likely end up drawing from it.
