According to wikipedia there are two ways of looking at ethics, realism and non-realism. Realism basically states ethics absolute, non-realism does not. I guess our goal-axioms both have both variants.

Retrying those goal-axioms: (again )
-There are things that have a feel-good.
-Those things also have a weight of importance.
-The goal is to try get feel-good up, based on the the weight.

Everything that is unknown is guessed with what is said before, association, and seeing what creatures do with given freedoms.
Comparing with the realism side of your axiom: "there is a absolute good, and you should follow it" In this axiom you do not know what this good is. I guess practically you could use association aswel.
So, from the realism side, axiom(sets) both have absolute statements. Practically, though, both have a layer that is not absolute; what is known for each creature. (and the associations used to deal with it) Of course you may have another idea for this practical layer. (like for some, absolute belief of the bible/koran.)
There is another sense which could be called non-absolute; perhaps not every creature follows the same ethics.

BTW plz stop quoting the entire replies, especially if they are long.