It is "absolute" if and only if there is no other Behavioral Maxim that can achieve the Objective in question.
What I am saying is that all of the Contractors in our scenario do realize that, in order that they all may enjoy an assurance of Not Being Murdered, it is a Reflexive Necessity that the Compact be Absolute (i.e., "un-exceptioned") in order to be efficacious.
It's only absolute because you have, without justification, pre-emptively disallowed all other possible courses of action. (This is also the case with your example of climbing the mountain.)
The underlying problem is that you want us to simply accept the stated pre-conditions in your examples. But the actual effort is in defining and deciding between pre-conditions, as we'll see below.
For example, OWK certainly does have the option of entering into your Social Compact, and trusting that A, B, and C will abide by the contract. But he can also forego your Social Compact entirely, murder them, and thus assure that they won't murder him first. Either alternative leaves OWK un-murdered.
Now the question is obviously no longer one of ends, it is one of means -- whether the actions by which we achieve our Objective are permissible.
If we accept that the Compact is the only alternative, well and good. But that's just the problem: can we, through reason alone, conclude that your Compact is the only route? Observation of nature and human history provides us with objective evidence that murdering rivals can be an efficacious means to the stated Objective of remaining alive. The real heavy lifting has to do with demonstrating that murder is not a permissible option.
Ergo, Mr.OWK has thus rationally deduced the necessity of an Absolute Behavioral Maxim, purely to satisfy his own self-interest.
He has done no such thing. His self-interest may be served by entering into a Compact. But it may be similarly served by killing his rivals; or it may be served by becoming their servant/slave. The only reason your proposed maxim has been derived as "absolute" is because you've rigged the game to provide the desired result.
Arguing that any "deviation" from the maxim will endanger Mr.OWK's security only proves my point.
Not at all. The underlying assumption in all of this is that OWK's security is already endangered, and that if he does nothing he will be murdered. (Were this not the case, then the whole exercise of making mutual "don't kill me" compacts is nonsensical.) The Social Compact, or making additional security arrangements, or murdering one's rivals, are all ways to solve the problem.
And of course, no discussion is complete without addressing the companion problem of trying to select the proper "highest good" from which to derive your Absolute Behavioral Maxims. You selected that "the desire to remain alive". Ayn Rand selected "happiness." One may just as well select "the good of the species," whatever that means. The point is: there are a variety of possible "highest goods," all of which can be (and have been) ably defended, and all of which can produce logically consistent, yet drastically different "Absolute Behavioral Maxims." This is relativism, the weaknesses of which the Rabbi succinctly described.
The issue is not what happens after you select your highest good -- it is selecting your highest good. And the only source for a truly absolute highest good is, of course, "I AM."
Thank you r9...again, there is no way to derive a value from a fact and vice-versa.
To wit: there is no such thing as a "virtuous" tack hammer; similarly, you cannot pound a tack into a wall with "virtue".
Sheesh, how hard is this?
No, that is NOT why a Behavioral Maxim is Absolute. A Behavioral Maxim can be Absolute even if other Behavioral Maxims would also accomplish the Objective in question.
It's not going to be worth my bother to deal with the rest of your post until you understand WHY a Behavioral Maxim would be Absolute.
Here's a hint: it has to do with Necessity of Consistency, not Necessity of Exclusivity. If you re-read my post and correct your misunderstanding, I'll proceed. If not, it's not even going to be worth my time to argue with the functionally illiterate.