Your last post basically says that war is a moral act, right? Both sides of any war that I can remember were fighting to protect what they love and feel and allegiance to.
Yes. So war is a means to an end. It is not an end in itself.
And more and more people are learning that there are ways to solve conflicts that are better for all involved than simply killing one side.
You have now defined morality in such a way that it allows, or even requires, human beings to kill each other.
No, I have not. I have attempted to describe morality as something we use to evaluate and justify our actions. If the choice is between watching a child die and killing the man who is about to kill the child, most would probably say that killing the man is the moral choice.
But the most important thing I am trying to communicate is that this is not a set of fixed rules we follow. It is an ability we have to assess behavior and either justify or oppose it according to our own sense of what is "right" or "how it should be" etc.
I see this as something that has emerged progressively in the course of our evolution, not as something that was invented once upon a time.
Apes do not have morality. But they have a social hierarchy and something that dictates proper behavior in inter species relations. Sometimes conflicts arise and are settled violently. But they are settled according to the rules of that social hierarchy.
Human morality is the same social system, only more conceptualized and expressed. It is a matter of capacity. Human capacity exceeds ape capacity to conceptualize and articulate their experience.
So I have not defined morality as something that requires humans to kill each other. I have described it as something that allows us to coexist despite
the fact that human beings kill each other.