The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, 1995 

ABSOLUTISM, MORAL. The view that certain kinds of actions are always wrong or are always obligatory, whatever the consequences. Typical candidates for such absolute principles would be that it is always wrong deliberately to kill an innocent human being, or that one ought always to tell the truth or to keep one’s promises. Absolutism is to be contrasted with *consequentialism, the view that the rightness or wrongness of actions is determined solely by the extent to which they lead to good or bad consequences. A consequentialist could maintain, for example, that *killing is normally wrong because it creates a great deal of grief and suffering and deprives the person who is killed of the future happiness which he/she would have experienced, but that since, in some cases, a refusal to kill may lead to even more suffering and loss of happiness, it may sometimes be fight even to kill the innocent.

Read the rest about Moral Absolutism here at The oxford Companion…

The AI

Moral absolutism is the ethical view that there are objective, universal moral rules that apply to everyone, everywhere, regardless of context, culture, intentions, or consequences.

According to moral absolutism, certain actions are always right or always wrong. Lying, killing, or torture, for example, are judged by fixed moral standards, not by circumstances. If an act is wrong, it remains wrong even if it leads to good outcomes.

This contrasts with moral relativism (morality depends on culture or situation) and moral consequentialism (morality depends on outcomes). Moral absolutism is often associated with religious ethics and with philosophers like Kant, who grounded morality in universal duties rather than consequences.

Wikipedia

Moral absolutism is not the same as moral universalism. Universalism holds merely that what is right or wrong is independent of custom or opinion (as opposed to moral relativism), but not necessarily that what is right or wrong is sometimes independent of context or consequences (as in absolutism). Louis Pojman gives the following definitions to distinguish the two positions of moral absolutism and objectivism: 

Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated.
Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance.
Ethical theories which place strong emphasis on rights and duty, such as the deontological ethics of Immanuel Kant, are often forms of moral absolutism, as are many religious moral codes.

Read for yourself on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism