Morality, Moral Luck and Responsibility: Fortune's Web By N. Athanassoulis, p64
I've not read Aristotle's Ethics, but am intrigued by whether we can have a virtue without an action that has that virtue. The author in question seems to say yes
Is this what those commentators mean, and how popular is that view, generally in virtue ethics? There just seems to be something awfully impractical, scholastic, even self congratulatory and conceited, in arguing that we can be truly virtuous without ever acting with that virtue. Mind you, that could just be because I assume there is always room for making the ethical decision, and acting on that, however insignificant the act ends up or seems.
So e.g. if you smile with the afflicted, then, even if you don't change anything, you've tried to act in a sympathetic and kind manner.