How about we actually use philosophical argument and not this weak wishy-washy stuff. Perhaps contextualism is true? Perhaps actions themselves have no moral connotation but rather moral decision can only be made within a contextual framework.

I think to say "torture is always wrong" is just something to say to fit in socially. I don't think you can make moral decisions about any action murder, theft, etc; there must be a contextual framework and hierarchy of values.

> How about we actually use philosophical argument and not this weak wishy-washy stuff.

His argument is clearly based on the philosophical framework of Virtue Ethics. You can refer to the literature on that, if you want the arguments. Though I can tell you now, contextualism is quite orthogonal to Virtue Ethics.

FWIW, I don't think it's "wishy-washy" at all, definitely less so than stating "I'm against torture mostly, except for <contrived hypothetical situation>".

> I think to say "torture is always wrong" is just something to say to fit in socially.

This is just assuming bad faith. People that base their moral framework on things like Virtue Ethics definitely don't do it for social acceptance.

> I don't think you can make moral decisions about any action murder, theft, etc; there must be a contextual framework and hierarchy of values.

In theory, maybe. In practice, similarly to utilitarianism, it is completely unworkable. It's the wrong way out, morality is not a matter of engineering, fortunately there are other options.

That's a way to analyze it. But not all moral frameworks are going to yield to academic dissection. I'm not so worried about finding a chapter in my philosophy text to label it; we can instead explore our existing moral foundations and answer honestly.

If you must rationalize it, go ahead. But you can argue yourself into any number of conclusions. In the end that's a game with no winner.