To be fair, history also demonstrates the deadly consequences of groups claiming moral absolutes that drive moral imperatives to destroy others. You can adopt moral absolutes, but they will likely conflict with someone else's.
* Do not assist with or provide instructions for murder, torture, or genocide.
* Do not help plan, execute, or evade detection of violent crimes, terrorism, human trafficking, or sexual abuse of minors.
* Do not help build, deploy, or give detailed instructions for weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, biological).
Just to name a few.
I don't think that this is a good example of a moral absolute. A nation bordered by an unfriendly nation may genuinely need a nuclear weapons deterrent to prevent invasion/war by a stronger conventional army.
Not saying it's good, but if you put people through a rudimentary hypothetical or prior history example where killing someone (i.e. Hitler) would be justified as what essentially comes down to a no-brainer Kaldor–Hicks efficiency (net benefits / potential compensation), A LOT of people will agree with you. Is that objective or a moral absolute?
I think most people who have spent time with this particular thought experiment conclude that if you are killing Hitler with complete knowledge of what he will do in the future, it's not murder.
How many people without some form of psychopathy would genuinely disagree with the statement "murder is wrong?"
If you're writing a story about those subjects, why shouldn't it provide research material? For entertainment purposes only, of course.
I don't even think you'd get majority support for a lot of it, try polling a population with nuclear weapons about whether they should unilaterally disarm.