If it wasn't for religion

[Acrobat]

Are you saying that the thought of people getting mass murdered doesn't make you sick? sad? disgusted? Revolted? angry?... All of the above and more?
Can you envisage "wrong" just being a label for when we perceive some action to activate a given number, or some particular set of these emotions?

Like the revulsion we feel at the thought of a sexual encounter between siblings.
Like the anger we feel at seeing someone hit someone weaker? "Why don't you pick on someone your own size?"
Like anger towards injustice.
Like many things that you'd put under the umbrella of morality, but, under the hood, they're formed of emotions.

People’s feeling are finicky. The first couple of times you hear about a mass shooting you might feel strongly sick, sad, disgusted, revolted, angry, but at some point, by about the 10th or 15th, it just like “ah another school shooting, so what else is new”. It’s not going spoil my morning coffee, or my trip to Disneyland. But just cause your actual emotional reactions to it have changed, doesn’t make it any less wrong.

In fact if I were to read about some mass murder taking place by Isis in Iraq, or some place in Africa right now, which there possibly is, my emotional state is pretty neutral, not much different after reading about it, as it was before.

Now if my friends, or family members where being mass murdered, i’d be overwhelmed with emotions, crippled by grief, etc....

But yet, It’s still wrong, regardless if it’s my family or people that I don’t know personally, even absent of any real emotional reaction to it.

Empathy is also finicky, people tend to feel more empathetic towards those that look like them, than those that don’t. If you take a white person, show them a video of another white person getting an injection, and a video of a black person getting injection, they have more of an empathetic response to the white person, than the black person. White people feel more empathy when a person skin is white, then when it’s black, and vice versa.

But what I mean is that those on the other side of the globe are just as faceless and nameless as those who live on the next village. And, if I can empathize with the ones closer, I can do it too to those who are far away.

Not nearly in the same way. You empathize far more superficially with some faceless nameless people in a village, than you do your own village, or people of your own skin color, race, background, etc…

Since you like to give examples of stuff, picture this hypothetical: imagine you, as a human being were not a social animal. You are an animal that wants to survive and breed, no concern whatsoever about society, no concept even of what that is. Like a puma, totally alone for the great majority of your life. What sort of moral belief would you have under this scenario?
Or better, would you even possess the concept of "morality"?

Yes, I would, for the same reason prisons aren’t filled with moral nihilist. A thief isn’t someone who doesn’t know that stealing is wrong. People who do immoral things, aren’t completely oblivious that things that they do are wrong. What you might find is delusions, and lies to justify their actions, sort of like one might find for those believing the earth is flat. If there was any group who should be eager to deny morality, you think it would be the most immoral among us, but it's not.

For us folks who do or have done a variety of bad things this perhaps incapsulates us: “For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.”

A person’s lack of concern, doesn’t equate to a lack of recognition of moral truths, just like a person’s lack of concern doesn’t equate to a lack of recognition of non-moral truths. I don’t have to care what shape the earth is, to acknowledge that the earth is round.