Paul Crowley

Last time I had a discussion about virtue ethics, I said much the same thing: specifically, I think, I said that virtue ethics would consider helping someone in need to be good because it was an act of charity and consider the fact that a real person ended up better off to be basically irrelevant to the character of the act. The local virtue ethicist said that was a slur: the fact that a real person ended up better off was entirely relevant to the character of the act, since it was that which made it an act of charity.

At that point I ceased to have a clear idea of what was virtue ethics and what was not.