However, I would just comment that in the "easy" situations, little deliberation is required. Atistotle did regard the good life as one that is chosen after due deliberation, such that our choices are made deliberately. I think that the same applies to fully virtuous behaviour, even if the deliberation is at times post hoc as the decision needs to be made more quickly than full deliberation would allow.

And that is where virtue comes into its own. Virtue is a pattern of thinking and behaviour which is deliberately developed to lead one into excellence in one's field. Utilitarianism requires balancing goods and evils and the numbers involved to reach a conclusion about what is the correct action to take. The time required for such a process has resulted in the development of rule utilitarianism, which provides for "standard" responses.

Psychiatry is often a minefield for most ethical theorists, because of the ease with which a hard case can be decided in multiple ways depending on the theory used to justify one's actions. Liberal conceptions of the good can leave a mentally ill homeless person in a situation he may not have deliberately (ie after deliberation) chosen, and consequentialist theories could be used to justify coercive intervention. Virtue has the advantage that it brings the judgement about what should be done back to the agent; is she acting out of virtuous pursuit of excellence as a citizen, social worker, housing officer, psychiatrist, whatever? If so, then the action is virtuous and therefore ethically justifiable.

If one has the wrong character, one can break even the best rules. If one has a virtuous character, one can act ethically where there are no rules.

Thank you for the post

Allen