This isn't dogma and it isn't simplification. It's a simple question about what kind of person you are.
To the extent that you can understand situations and determine outcomes, would you behave differently if the difference between helping or hurting others had no consequenses for you?
I told you this is not an interrogation. If you are willing to discuss what virtue is, I can talk with you. If not, fine.
I think the answer is he can think of no rational reason, besides the dictates of a Deity, to make any moral decisions. Morality in that case is subjective, not objective. It's either the subjective whims of a deity, or it is the subjective feelings of an individual. But there can no objective basis to being *moral*. The question seems nonsensical to a subjectivist.