As someone who sympathizes with Hume I found this article to be in line with many of my own thoughts, but I do not think Aristotle can be taken as reducing ethics to simplistic logic. For example, eudaimonia implies experience, without which, we speak of nothing. That said it seems certainly possible to take an Aristotlean route and end up on the wrong foot.

So what if morality exists to us because we are at some level, and perhaps not at one which is purely intellectual, moral beings? What if morality is necessarily meaningless to us apart from this aspect of ourselves, be it culturally instilled, psychological, biological and/or interpreted as spiritual? If it is, we have no expectation of it, whatever it is, to conform to simplified ideas able to be grasped by limited minds. Why should we expect it to be uniform like a simplistic fact as opposed to something more akin to a multi-faceted landscape? Well, for one, that would be inconvenient for attempts to replace what is, with something else more suitable to other interests, as each and every attempt would almost certainly result in consequences violating what was originally there.

That said, as for honor killings, I think the author can trust his moral instinct in the wrongness of the act, but I would go further, suspecting that there may be a real basis for the honor killing itself. It's not impossible that the perpetrator has experienced a wrong. That may not justify the retribution, however, as much as it reveals that the culture within which these social and phsycological realities persist is itself contradictory, and morally twisted.