Does Virtue Ethics provide a convincing account of moral obligation?
It seems that you’re being asked whether virtue ethics provides convincing moral guidance. Let’s say that you have a moral obligation to help someone if they ask you and it will not harm or disadvantage you in any way, for example by taking up a lot of your time or taking money that you can’t afford. Consequentialism would say that you have to do this because it has the best consequences. That is, no disadvantage to you and some advantage to the person you help is a better outcome than no disadvantage to you and the person asking for help not getting it. Deontology would say that you have to do this because it is your duty, perhaps using Kant’s categorical imperative (basically only do something if you could rationally desire that everyone did the same thing). In this case you have to choose between “help people who ask when it won’t disadvantage you” and “don’t help people who ask even when it won’t disadvantage you”. There would be no contradiction in refusing to help as long as you
