I think not. True, cultural norms can and do vary. But there seem to be innate 'standards' that are part of what it means to be a complete human--for example, some research seems to show that even very young, pre-verbal babies already have a sense of 'fairness.' Other researchers have spoken of a 'primate morality,' which would mean that even non-humans have a sense of right and wrong, though they don't have fully-developed ethics in the human style.
This is, I think, quite a different question than that of 'absolute good/bad.' Good and bad might be consistent among individuals without thereby becoming absolutes. For example, we might all agree that killing is wrong in general, but also all agree that this is not an absolute proscription--perhaps it is OK to kill in self-defense, or for food. (We don't actually all agree to either of those propositions, of course, but you get the point.)
An absolute, as I would use the term, would be something that forms a moral norm without qualification--for example, maybe some would say that it is always wrong to regard another human as an object, regardless of context, intention, or anything else. If so, that is an absolute.
Clearly, there are folks who hold absolute moral beliefs--for example, some in the US have expressed the opinion that abortion is always, without exception, wrong, even to save the life of the mother. They hold abortion as an absolute wrong. Clearly, they are also a small minority--even among anti-abortion activists, many would allow it to save the mother.
So absolute beliefs appear to exist, but they are not universal; and universal ethical beliefs appear to exist, but they are not absolute, since they exist in a fluid balance with other ethical beliefs and the balance must be resolved with regard to the facts of a particular context.