ABSTRACT
This chapter argues that both acting from virtue and acting virtuously are deeply problematic when understood as bases for a standard of moral rightness. It distinguishes acting from a virtuous motive from acting for a good reason, and argued that Audi's claim is plausible only for the former, not the latter. The chapter considers an objection due to Daniel Russell about the relevance of "ought implies can" to virtue ethics. Audi argues that "we cannot at will determine for what reasons we act" and thinks it follows from this that we cannot act virtuously at will. It is telling, however, that his considered view regarding acting virtuously is more nuanced than acting virtuously (AV) suggests. The chapter discusses the sharp distinction between acting from a virtuous motive and acting for a good reason, and argue that any problematic feature of acting virtuously stems from its connection to the former notion not the latter.
