I never said that morality can be objectively verified as a thing in itself. My description is neither true or false because it's not a proposition. That description is my conception of morality, and I conceive of it that way for reasons that have to do with practicality and utility. It's also influenced by evolutionary psychology.
The problem is, you began the thought with "My question is only vague if your conception of morality is vague.", then continued by defining your own.
Thus, you do the following:
1) Assume our morality is vague, as well as imcompatible with the discussion, simply because you've erroniously decided this is the scource behind percieving your question as such.
2) You've set your own morality above another's(as you do not believe your question is vague).
My conception of morality is anything but
vague, yet your question remains so.
I asked him/her if they were an immoralist. I didn't decide that they were.
You sure have a natural way of sounding like you're making a statement.
"So you're a wise guy, huh?"
heard or seen anyone using "huh" after a question without being sarcastic, confrontational, or "matter of fact".
I'm limiting that perspective because that's not what this thread is about. Discussing nihilism and prescriptive relativism will not contribute to this discussion.
a perspective and discussing about
a perspective are two different things entirely.
This discussion is about the conduct of war, and we can only conclude from nihilism and prescriptive relativism that it doesn't matter.
Or, so you've assumed.