I just do not believe you are truly nihilistic. Saying you do not believe in moral obligation would suggest as much (since it is a nihilistic position), and so does the idea that "morals are nothing more than a bit of genetically orchestrated sophistry".
If neither virtue nor deontology nor consequentialism will do it for you, then it is beyond me how you function in daily life since meaning is utterly impossible. At the very least, you are describing a sort of hedonistic consequentialism above, which may or may not be wrong vis-a-vis virtue ethics and deontological ethics. It might be owed to evolutionary psychology or whatever, but it is still a sort of moral compass that grew out of our ancestors' interactions with the natural environment and each other. It is the product of our species emerging from an ecological system.
I guess I am just tired of this disingenuous post-modern position that is so popular these days. A lack of teleology or absolute authority to provide for a moral code does not mean such a thing does not exist. The "I do not believe in moral obligation" stance is itself a moralistic position; it just effectively relocates the moral compass to the individual and their innate sense of morality that emerges as a result of their biology and the ecosystem. Why would that be sophistry? We can rip on deontology or virtue ethics all day, but that does not remove the fact that we are necessarily moral actors. I think that we cannot avoid having a sense of virtue or deontology as well if we are capable of rational thought. No rules is a rule that effectively says I make the rules, and no virtue is a virtue that makes me responsible for what is and is not virtuous. The absence of belief in moral obligation is itself a moral obligation that you chose as a rational actor.
And why should there not be any truth beyond question? It is a self-evident truth that the 3 sides of a triangle equal 180 degrees. Though I suppose you are talking about what is true moralistically. In that case, isn't the idea that there is no moral obligation self-evident, or is there some sort of teleology that makes it so.... such as the idea that ""morals are nothing more than a bit of genetically orchestrated sophistry".