Thanks for bringing this to Meta.
We had received several low quality flags on three of your posts which brought me to commenting on the first to see if it could be improved, deleting it when it became clear that it wouldn't be, and deleting the others directly because you had made it quite clear that you did not intend to improve your posts on the basis of what would be useful for the OP. As a standard procedure, I had a look on your other recent posts after having received the flags, but fortunately most of them were fine.
However, that - helping the OP - is the core of what Stack Exchange is about. We are here to share our knowledge of a particular field with people currently exploring that field. There may be people who come to this question by searching, later on. Yes, ideally your answer is helpful to them as well. But we don't know where they are coming from and what they need in their learning process. What we do know or at least can try to guess is what the OP needs.
Often, "what the OP needs" is not mentioned explicitly. For example, I recall asking a question about Charles Taylor which was basically asking to explain a certain sentence. While an answerer could probably have sufficed with a two-line answer explaining in as little words as possible (thus making it ambiguous and obscure) what that sentence meant, virmaior wrote an excellent answer in which he didn't only share his knowledge of the subject but also explained how he would approach a question like this, which helped me in further reading this text and others.
Your answers fall in the category of strictly speaking perhaps answering the question that is found in the title of the post. But in all cases I doubted if you had read the body of the question, which provides the context. For example, your answer to Ayn Rand's Objectivism - Can an immoral act become moral? answered "Can an immoral act become moral?" in a strict sense, however, the body is actually asking if a theory of Rand can be applied in some scenario, and your answer did not deal with Ayn Rand or objectivism. An ideal answer would take the theory and use citations to explain that it can(not) be applied in this scenario.
Lastly, I'd like to quote a passage from our How to answer page (emphasis mine):
Read the question carefully. What, specifically, is the question asking for? Make sure your answer provides that – or a viable alternative. The answer can be “don’t do that”, but it should also include “try this instead”. Any answer that gets the asker going in the right direction is helpful, but do try to mention any limitations, assumptions or simplifications in your answer. Brevity is acceptable, but fuller explanations are better.
I hope to have made it clear that your posts were not deleted because of some personal grudge that I don't have, and to have given you a direction in which to go to improve your answers. If anything is unclear, let me know, and enjoy the site!
