Looking at the Nicomachean Ethics the unity of virtues appears to relate directly to the individual based on the repeated phrasing of who's virtue or duty is being described:
(Below emphasis is mine)
Givers, too, are called liberal; but those who do not take are not
praised for liberality but rather for justice; while those who take
are hardly praised at all. And the liberal are the most of the most
loved of all virtuous characters, since they are useful; and this
depends on their giving. Now virtuous actions are noble and done for
the sake of the noble. Therefore the liberal man, like other virtuous
men, will give for the sake of the noble, and rightly; for he will
give to the people the right amounts...(See Book 0, 0, p. 54 of Ref)
... and then
If, then as is asserted, the virtues are voluntary (for we are
ourselves somehow partly responsible for our own states of character,
and it is by being persons of a certain kind that we assume the end be
so), the vices also will be voluntary; for the same is true of them. (See Book 4, 1, p. 43 of Ref)
.. and the duty of virtue in society
... but think it their duty 'to give no pain to the people they meet';
while those who on the contrary, oppose everything and do not care a
whit about giving pain are called churlish and contentious. (Book 4, 6
p. 66 of Ref)
.. on friendship
What is evil neither nor should be loved; for it is not the one's duty
to be a lover of evil, nor to become like what is bad; and we have
said that like is dear like. (Book 9, 3, p. 149 of Ref)
Reference
