Virtue ethics: "Shooting people is bad because it's motivated by malice, and shows a lack of compassion."
Deontology: "Shooting people is bad because it violates human rights and the golden rule."
Whether shooting somebody is bad? Not clear enough. I may shoot somebody in self-defense or somebody else may ask me to shoot them, it wouldn't be an
evil thing to do in those circumstances regardless of motivation or ideals.
On the other hand...
'It is wrong to initiate undesired harm upon another person' fits any circumstance.
Why is it wrong? ...because it can't possibly be considered good! Let us propose the opposite:
'It is right to initiate undesired harm upon another person'
So now we're forced to classify anyone who is not starting fights to be evil, this includes people who are physically unable despite a lack of choice (the reason ethics exists as an idea). Furthermore, it's only possible for one person to start a fight, automatically condemning the target(s) for acting in self-defense - that means it's impossible for everyone to maintain a state of virtue under such a rule. There's one more issue here, if everyone accepts initiating harm upon others as good then it's no longer
undesired, furthering the impossibility of virtue
.
Naturally we conclude:
If we are to achieve virtue, then 'It is
not right to initiate undesired harm upon another person'. That's something we can all follow at all times.
Yet simply refraining from evil does not make someone a saint. The specifics of virtue (honesty, courage, respect, etc) are more circumstantial whereas evil is absolute.
