...The universe doesn't have a sign that says, "It is objectively good for organisms to survive."...
The universe does not determine morality, however, so naturally it has no direction upon it.
Living things determine morality, or more to the point, we know for sure that people determine morality. To say that "the universe" this or that is ridiculous, because the universe is an inanimate object that does not have morals, does not have thoughts or feelings, or even, as you say, a purpose (that we know of). Personification of an abiotic entity as great in scale as the universe is a ludicrious way to insist that life does not wish to flourish.
If anything, the universe is out to get destroy life as we know it. There is a reason Earth is one of the few planets suitable for life, and the only one discovered so far that definitely has life on it. Against all odds life in general has flourished here, even if it has had its downpeaks. Mammals would have never risen to the top without the removal of the dinosaurs; yet, no button was pressed, no decision to make war was made, it just happened. Would morality cause the survivors to destroy themselves also because they feel they have no purpose, no meaning now that their previous rulers have gone extinct?
I would like to think not considering where we are today.
... There is no "purpose" when it comes to morality...
I completely disagree with this statement, in case you haven't picked up on that already. Morality has a purpose, especially in human endeavors. IF it had no purpose it would not have survived in so many cultures for so long; what one considers right or wrong is quintessential to development, perception, and almost all things related to decision-making once established. Before the concept of right and wrong, pleasure and sustenance are guides, and in their own way, are the only rights, and displeasure and self-destruction the only wrongs, until society (or other factors) cause a blurring of the lines.
...One could view it either way, but what I saying is that there is no "measure" to make them correct, because it wouldn't exist...
History is written by the victor. Naturally, the "victor" would determine the measure on an objective level, but on an absolute level, the measure is set by a combination of chance (uncontrollable, relatively unpredictable things in the universe, especially luck) and determinations (controlled, comparatively predictable things in the universe, such as implementation of a policy). Together, chance and determinations show the measure of which success, however, coined and however determined, was best of the outcomes.
Speculation aside, again, its subjective. The prerequisite you place for morality has no bearing, it leads to most often circular thoughts and no real conclusions.
Kyle: You ought to be unselfish.
Ted: Why?
Kyle: Because it is for the good of society.
Ted: Why should I care what is good for society unless it pays me personally?
Kyle: Because you ought to be unselfish...
Kyle: You ought to be unselfish
Ted: Why?
Kyle: Because it is for the good of our society.
Ted: Why should I care what is good for society unless it pays me personally?
Kyle: Because a good deed for our society pays you personally.
Ted: Moreso that a good deed does not go unpunished. How so does a good deed for our society pay me personally?
Kylel: A good deed for our society will lead to a better society, which will lead to a better environment for you, which will pay you more than doing evil for our society, which will lead to a worse environment for you.
----
Religions, schools of thought, etc. have all filled in their idea of an answer, but they all generally come down to improving society so that society will improve the environment.
Even if they somehow find a way to overpower him and they sentence him to death or torture, the pleasure of his reign can outweigh the torture he felt or even his death.
Then his good is personal pleasure. If that is projected to the peasants, then their suffering will be seen as evil, and thus what he ultimately does to suffer to them is evil. If pleasure and pleasure alone is good, then to cause more suffering than pleasure is evil, even by the king's definition.
Suppose Mike and John are co-workers, Mike gets into a car accident and dies. Mike's family is grieving and they have lost much a father, a brother, son, a husband, a friend etc. But on the flip side, John is happy. Mike was a jerk to him and now that he is dead, John is next in line for his spot at work. It gets better pay, a better office, etc, making HIS family better off.
What is the moral delimma here? The situation, without further details on the accident, can be neither evil nor good, because it was just that; an accident. If John murdered Mike, then one could make a judgement on whether it is good or evil.
ike I said before, destruction of humanity or any species doesn't matter, life has no purpose, only what it simply does.
For a human, the destruction of humanity does matter, much like for a bee the destruction of the hive matters considerably. There is no aught to, because a non-fictional character, even if he/she wants to see the world burn, there is a reason to it. Whether he/she realizes it or not, there is an ultimate reason to have the world burn.