Quite the opposite, I declare, out of the blue, that my goal should be to increase "feel-good" of all creatures weighed by some (admittedly arbritrary) measure based on the creature. (i mean ants have low weight, cats more, humans even more)
Problem is of course that you cannot really know how other creatures feel. So the assumption is, that by using what is naturally associate, and by what creatures do when given freedoms, you can get an idea of what makes them feel good.
I do not see how this is absolute, the viewpoint admits it is intrinsically bound the creature having the viewpoint personally perceives things. (i'd dislike declaring things absolute)
How would you define ethic? My definition is that a persons ethics is his goal based on his axioms<edit>I mean the goal is defined using the axioms, not that the axioms define the goal, ethic-axioms are really just the goal.</edit>, but not on specific circumstance. In that sense, saying that there is a universal ethic is equivalent to saying that, ultimately everyones goal is the same, only the circumstance differs. (eh feel i encountered problem with universal and absolute, i mean, that something is universal, the same for everyone, does not mean they perceive it the same.)

BTW asides, considering the possible existence of multiple external worlds, i would criticise some my earlier "refutements" of afterlife.