I understand where you are coming from in creating consistent ethical principles as I too strive for consistency.

Where I think we diverge possibly is that I cannot call this consistency "morality" as I think "morality" also speaks to ultimate truth.

So while we could agree that someone who murders but who doesn't want themselves to be murdered would be a hypocrite and engaging in a seeming performative contradiction about consent, this does not settle the question of ultimate truth, i.e.

• What the nature of existence is.
• What came before time.
• What exists outside of our view of reality.

Etc.

I understand those above topics are essentially null hypotheses which cannot readily be proven nor disproven from a human vantage.

Which is why I stick to ethics (and morality essentially) as a positive ethical adoption: something that is ascribed by the human experience, for the human experience, as best as possible.

This avoids creating "oughts" from "is" and, instead, realizes the nature of human empathy: the ability to show a desire for wholeness and peace for most people if being honest without contradiction i.e. not an ethical lunatic engaging in special pleading.