Try to attempt to take the conversation further by examining their claims or arguments in more depth or responding to the posts that they make to you. Keep the discussion on target and try to analyze things in as much detail as you can. 100 words or more.
After reading Robinson’s article Magnanimity and Integrity as Military Virtues, I have a better sense of honor and how it relates to the virtue of military service. Merriam-Webster fully defines magnanimous as follows: showing, or suggesting a lofty and courageous spirit. Aristotle referred to magnanimity as being “the magnanimous man has the right attitude towards honours and dishonours… magnanimous people are concerned with honour, because it is honour that they claim as their due, and deservedly” (ibid.:154). Having never served in the military, how I interpret this is that the honor that military service members achieve is derived from making decisions both selflessly as well as courageously. They don’t do it for the fame, or for the money, but for knowing that what they’re doing is achieving a goal for the immediate, or eventual betterment of something. In addition to achieving a goal for the betterment of society, their country, or the world, they also make decisions looking at the overall impact, or end result of their decisions. Unlike consequentialism where the acts’ consequences are based on rules, virtue ethics are based on character and morals.
Magnanimous. (n.d.). Retrieved October 11, 2016, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/magnanimous
Robinson, P. (2007). Magnanimity and Integrity as Military Virtues. Journal Of Military Ethics, 6(4), 259-269. doi:10.1080/15027570701755364