Is easy to claim the moral high ground when you don't define it, meaning where are you drawing the line? If I lose a leg in an accident and some scientists (plus doctors) can make a clone of my leg and my leg only to reattach it on my body is that moral or amoral? If yes then what about the complete lower body? If yes what about everything below the neck?
I think you are being silly.
What's moral or amoral is dependant on whatever he is feeling at the moment. I very much doubt he has defined it.
Which is the point in using the word obvious, obviously. Namely, using it to feel superior or to not provide a better argument.