Final answer:
The rule 'do not kill' is not absolute, as historical, cultural, and philosophical contexts can alter its application or universality. Philosophers like Kant and Locke have contributed to the nuanced understanding of this moral imperative, revealing its complexities.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement "do not kill" as an absolute rule is False. While the imperative to not kill is a strong ethical guideline pervasive in many societies and often upheld by legal systems, historical, cultural and philosophical contexts present scenarios where such a rule is not considered absolute. An example of such context can be seen in the historical account of tribes with systems of retaliatory killings to prevent intertribal violence, thus demonstrating that the rule could be flexibly applied for the perceived greater good of communal peace.
Philosopher Immanuel Kant asserted that moral rules should be universal through his categorical imperative, which would suggest that a rule like "do not kill" would need to be capable of being applied universally. Yet, practical and moral complexities emerge, such as the instance discussed by John Adams where the law may justify killing in self-defense, illustrating that the absoluteness of such a rule can be questioned.