Yeah. There's nothing inherently honorable in killing.
In my opinion there´s something inherently dishonorable in killing others.
But I don't see why we have to assume that it is inherently dishonorable in all contexts.
That´s where we disagree, and that´s where your basis in objectivity already goes out the window.
Well it sounds like you pretty much said it yourself. Reality dictates the need for a specific job, which shapes the subjective interpretations of individuals in similar ways.
Yes, that´s what I said, emphasis on "similar". That does not mean that all people interprete it in the same way - that´s the other thing I said. I have given examples.
Assuming that these individuals are applying proper reason to their actions, it would explain why they are arriving at similar conclusions.
Assuming that they are applying improper reason would lead to the same result. So would the assumption that some of them arrive at this notion by applying proper reasoning and some by applying improper reasoning.
Perhaps these disagreements come about through differences in circumstances.
Yes, this is most lileky one of the reasons. So if two persons in different circumstances have a different opinion about someone´s action being virtuous/non virtuous - who is right?
Agreed. War for profit is hypocritical on so many levels, but war in general isn't always unjust.
In my opinion there is no legitimation for war. That´s where we disagree, and such disagreements are another reason for different ideas what actions are virtuous or aren´t.
I´m not sure, though, that you really want to go down the road of making the question whether an action was committed for a just case (in the global political picture) a prerequisite for discerning the action as virtuous/non-virtuous. That would shift the required consideration quite a bit to politics. Apparently people disagree on what a just political case is - else there wouldn´t be wars, in the first place.
Besides, being virtuous and judging an action virtuous in war would require the person acting and the person judging to be in hold of an enormous amount of information - information that is typically not available to me, you and them.
In any case, you seem to be arguing from two contradictory premises: Here you argue that virtue depends on the "justness of the case" for which the action was committed, whilst before you argued for the objectivity of the concept "virtue" from the fact that soldiers of opposing armies can respect each other as virtuous. Since opposed armies have opposed cases, something doesn´t add up there.
I'm not necessarily trying to find any particular definition other than the right one.
Definitions aren´t right or wrong. Definitions are useful for a particular purpose or they aren´t. And they are closer to or further from the ways a word is commonly used. The only reason for the demand for proper definitions is to make sure we are talking about similar ideas. It´s not like there were virtue out there and there were a word that is naturally the right word for this thing out there, and definitions were about finding this word.
If we assume that virtue is defined subjectively, then I see no reason to conclude that suicide bombers aren't acting in a virtuous way, even if their logic is flawed.
I don´t see any other way for it being subjective, and I don´t see how that keeps me from finding suicide bombing not virtuous.
The preference for vanilla or chocolate icecream is subjective, and this doesn´t keep me from having an opinion about it, either.
Suicide bombers feel they have a just case, and they do what I keep hearing is the greatest thing you can do: be willing to lay down your life for others.
Of course, they use the same trick that everyone uses for making "our" atrocities justifiable as being "virtuous":
a. they focus on the "laying down one´s own life" and blind out the "killing of innocents" (whilst when it comes to the actions of "the others", they do the opposite)
b. they use the opportunity to frame the situation so that it allows for calling "our" guys "virtuous": from the frame "face value" to the frames "world history" or "divine command" and anything in between.
But an action cannot be said to be virtuous if it can be shown that it is hypocritical without running into a contradiction.
Why can this not be said?
Whatever. When I hear people saying "this was a virtuous action" I interprete it as "I approve of this action/I like it/I find it admirable (in one way or the other).". I have never encountered this interpretation to be inaccurate. So I guess sticking to it is a good idea, for all practical purposes.
