Is stealing always wrong? What if you're stealing from a thief? Or, perhaps, a better example: lying? Is it always wrong? If you're baing robbed and the thief asks you to give up all that you have and you give up part of it and lie that there's no more, is that lying immoral? You can extrapolate that to our relationship with the government.

Perhaps this can be more appropriately approached as being on the side of reality = being moral. Being on the side of non-reality is immoral.
A different approach would be immorality precedes evil behavior. Morality precedes good behavior.
As an Objectivist you must know that your own life has value but others are to be respected.

No. Pretending that I thought that plunging the knife into my chest was something that I wanted ...and then convincing others that it was the "right" thing to do is immoral...particularly if by doing this you have successfully stolen from me with the approval and support of others.

Is morality absolute? What a thought. "Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). The philosophy of morality is ethics. A moral code is a system of morality (according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code." (Wikipedia)

For myself, I remove the words good and bad since they come too close to altruistic rationalizing justifications. I use right and wrong as derived from Objectivist Philosophy.

The simple answer is NO, it's contextual to an individual and circumstantial basis, but properly derived from an objectivist point of view,
1. meaning to understand the definitions of the words and names and actions applied
2. that actual observations of those things involved are made
3. that the reasoning ability of the individual is applied with rational logic to the abstracts and concepts generated eliminating contradictions
4. that a certain truth is identified
5. actions are taken based on that truth
then that morality is consistent within that philosophy for that individual for that set.

Within Objectivist Philosophy there is one unitary principle: “This is John Galt Speaking” in Atlas Shrugged:
"Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man my(sic) initiate—do you hear me? No man may start—the use of physical force against others." But there is also another, that being that the individual decide and act for his/her self interest.

My first Zen Master gave me a similar unitary principle, appropriately Westernized: "It's OK to be a human being and make all the mistakes a human makes, as long as you never intentionally harm another, more particularly yourself."

But I've found myself, against my choice and intention, to be placed in situations where it was my job and necessity to initiate fatal force against others. That was at an age before my Objectivist Philosophy had cured and set to such a point that I could resist or refuse the force that placed me in that situation in the first place. And I've had a 40 +/- year battle within my self ever since, which is what led me to my Zen Master in the first place. The battle lines have swung back and forth and probably will until I die.

There's going to be a lot of disagreement with the above, but I believe that we can reach consensus if we first start with the definitions, the philosophy, and the contexts.

I think the problem lies in that many people assign the term "religion" to an organized practice of such with followers, leaders, etc. such as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. Where this falls short is in recognizing that religion is nothing more than a defined set of shared values and also includes the cults of Global Warming, animal rights, nature worship, political ideologies such as Progressivism, Marxism, etc. Even atheism is a religion.

Religion is simply one's way of life.

Your question is not fundamental to O. Ethics.
But you start with the idea that you own yourself. You can kill yourself. The dilemma is can you ask someone else to help you kill yourself? They are a free agent, if they want to help they can. From a legal/practical perspective, there are challenges. But the fundamental position is clear. Doctors do it all the time.
What is your objection with step two?

"The first question is: Does man need values at all—and why?"

One can not act without values. Self-determination presupposes the ability to evaluate one's current position in comparison to a future position. If one has no values, one has no basis for comparison and therefore can not act. The need for values is therefore presupposed and inherent when one defines man as being self-aware. There is no great moral mystery here. The question is really about which morality (value system) to adopt.

For example, computer code is just exactly that: a value system. Without it, the computer sits lifeless and useless. With it, it now has instructions on which it can perform computations and work.

No, the first question is this: "Presupposing that man has the capability to act, the key lies in defining HOW he should act, i.e. which set of rules should govern his decisions."

The original question posed by iroseland was "when is it moral to die". I bring up capital punishment as an obvious test of this question. I have observed that one's position on this item is largely determined by one's belief in the afterlife. Those who believe in an afterlife are much less likely to oppose the practice, while those who disbelieve are much more likely to oppose it.

In addition to the quandary of capital punishment, one must also evaluate the following moral quandaries: defensive killing, abortion, suicide, assisted suicide, and sacrifice to save another. To me, all of these situations must be addressed in order to comprehensively answer the question: "when is it moral to die?"

You can't steal something from someone if they don't actually own it.

The logic is correct, but I don't think capital punishment is ethically right. I consider it as initiating force.

This is what you are doing. You are ignoring the conceptual framework of Objectivist Ethics. Then you bring up a specific situation of which we do not have all the facts. You can't do this in engineering.
How is different than saying 2+2 does not equal 4. Because what if you have 2 apples and 2 oranges, that's not 4 oranges.
The conceptual framework needs to be part of the discussion and you can't subvert it by context dropping.
It has been well defined in Objectivism. IF you have a specific question, state it. Let's take capital punishment. Objectivists would say
1.You have a right to self defense.
2.When those right's are violated, the one violating another's rights, forfeits their own.
3. Under the law there is proportionality and you do not have to have capital punishment
4.Capital punishment is not immoral.
next?

MM likes to point out my answers are always quick without deeper analysis. I agree. Not really appropriate on this site to give 25 pages of statement regarding Ethics-perhaps a link. I am ok with Rand combining Ethics and Morality-both meet the standard of 'code of values.'

Morality and reality are the same thing.

Immorality is the systematic re-creation of reality in an attempt to gain that which you haven't earned.

Ethics are principles of self-interest based upon reality and reason.

Right on the money. Reality is existence. Morality is how we choose to respond to it. And often, not to choose is ultimately making a choice. Robinson Crusoe is a fine example.