An argument from basis.

[Annik]

Well I think it's a bit trickier then a I thought. The reason is because it's good to be honourable, and it's honourable to be good.

Let's see to better define it, it's that honour gives us insight to the exalted side of morality. For example, we talk about (objective) morality, and it's more about what is right or wrong. We talk about what is more honourable, and it's the same thing, except this time we are looking at from perspective of it's exalted aspect and sort of sacred dimension to it. But I would say certain moral acts have more of the "honour" dimension to it. So in this sense it can't be said goodnesss = honor and honour = goodness despite the fact that it's good to be honorable and honorable to be good. Also the more exalted the intention (spirit behind the action), the more honourable the act is.

"Good" is also a subjective term. By extension, honorable must be as well.