You are just full of homework assignments, lately!

CS Lewis wrote a book that bears on this subject [called something about the Tao - can't remember]. Of course, his perspective was limited only to earthly cultures. His thesis was that there are inherrent rights and wrongs. He admitted that not everyone or every culture ascribed to agreement with every "right or wrong", but that did not invalidate that they existed nor invalidate that they really were "rignt or wrong".

As an example he admitted that he did not desire the company of small children. In his view, this was a case of his going against the Tao. But that there was still no doubt that children are desirable. So diversity of opinions could be encompassed while still accepting that there was some list of rules that were right.

When you go to a perspective of multi-species, I think you have good precedents on this planet already: some species eat their young, for instance. You can go two ways with that:

1) These are unintelegent species, and therefore immuned to moral codes. Intellegent species from earth or elsewhere would follow the Tao. or

2) There will be just as much diversity between intellegent species' morals as there are between unintellegent species' behaviors.

Which boils down to the classic question: from a sample of one, do you assume other samples to be found in the future, will be similar or different? Corrollory: do you think you know pretty much everything you need to know, in order to predict the qualities of something you have never seen? Or do you expect to be surprised?

My vote: heck if I know! I'd love to find out. I hope we find frigid, methane-breathing poets. Boiling, sulphur-breathing warriors would be interesting too, but less desirable as neighbors.