Such a law would have to apply strictly in the most empirical sense apart from any exigent circumstances and have the capacity to be applied evenly regardless of those circumstances. I'm not aware of any way to craft such a law since humans aren't omnipotent or omniscient.
It is possible to produce the concept of an absolute good to which one might aspire. I expect that's how we wound up with ideas like God and Kant's moral imperative. Zombiehorde's reference to projection is quite accurate. We've been thinking in terms of forward movement both physically and intellectually since we walked out of Africa. For the vast majority of us where we are is almost inconsequential to where we are going. Some of us have even developed a way of thinking that refutes the imperative of forward projection which takes years of study and practice to achieve proficiency. Of course those who engage in such practice would probably not use the term "proficient " since it implies that which they are trying to avoid (another term which does not apply). Since language is a projective tool in itself it is impossible to accurately discuss that experience at all I guess. It seems we are so specifically designed to project we can hardly discuss any other option.
The term "law" assumes the possibility of an infraction, which assumes an act that has already occurred. When coupled with the term "moral", which is projective, the phrase "moral law" refers to what we should do based on a canon derived from precedent. The only moral law I can think of that might be considered universal would be the an interdiction against incest, and in the light of advances in genetic engineering and cloning it might not apply much longer.