So what makes killing morally wrong?

There is no objective morality, unless we insert the presence of a higher being and its rules.

Right

So imperialism isn't immoral

because morality doesn't exist

And again, I answered that question.

> The people, their cultures, their religions, etc. But murder is the most common immoral thing in all cultures, religions, and all people agree with that, put aside mentally ill people.

It is.

Morality does exist.

Morality being subjective doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Murder is wrong but killing in itself is not always wrong

Ok but without something objective "right" and "wrong" can't exist

It can exist, but it's just subjective.

Just like beauty.

You can't say beauty doesn't exist.

You obviously believe that your morality is true enough that it ought to be followed

So I am simply asking why

I explained why.

No, you didn't.

> It's not obvious how killing other people, mentally hurting their society, friends, family, and causing negative feelings to another is a bad thing?

Stop playing the why game with me.

You think it's common sense but that doesn't explain why a certain act is "wrong"

But you said morality is subjective

Yes.

If I’m an imperialist

In my interpretation of morality, Imperialism is wrong.

So why then should I adopt your view on morality?

I think it’s okay to kill a group in a territory I control is ok

Now which interpretation morality is the best can be concluded by the benefits each one has.

And there’s nothing wrong with that

Because it has many benefits.

What are they?

Many, but the primary one, is a larger population of people, living peacefully, which can ensure social and economic development/assistance, and assistance/development in many other sectors. Imperialism straight up destroys this development in order for the state and the people living within the state before the expansions, to have a better quality of life, or for any other reason.

Ok but let's say that at some point it would be to my advantage to act in an imperialist manner, would you say that as long as I can assure my victory over an opposing group that it would be wrong to invade and overtake them?

Yes it would be wrong. You can antagonise that group in many other ways.

Why should I?

Because it won't hurt people, their communities and the societies they belong to.

Alright so why would hurting those people matter if I can destroy them?

Because their existence gives you more benefits than their absence.

If you don't want to go with what's moral and what's not (in my opinion)

Well I don't think that such a standard would really work in every case

Their existence would be detrimental to the state only of the state is incompetent.