Did you deliberately choose the least favourable interpretation of what I have written? I have specifically included "for money" as a qualifier for universally immoral killing, which you have ignored. My point wasn't that killing is universally immoral, but that there are patterns of behaviour whose immorality isn't disputed by reasonable people. But fine, I think I can take your reply literally too. Do you really claim that every single person would condone if I killed two strangers and took their money? That's just ridiculous.

I also don't take the cultural relativist argument, especially in the context of the debate. I tried to support the idea that morality is more or less as well uniquely and precisely defined as health. Of course there are cultures which have unusual moralities, but there are cultures with unusual notions of health too (e.g. the Hinduists celebrating various physical deformities). But if you are steering the argument in this direction, please tell me in what culture I am morally entitled to kill my neighbour just because I want to occupy his house.

Could moral absolutists name even a single action that is universally condoned by every culture?

Uh, ... breathing?

Or am I taking the question too literally here? :)