Journal of Sociology Social Welfare necessary tools for doing it were not available in the current state of philosophy One response to this problem is to point out that in terms of giving guidance for action, utilitarianism and Kantian de ontology are again in no better shape. As Hursthouse(1999) Act utilitarianism must specify what are to count as the best consequences, and deontology what is to count as a correct moral rule, producing a second premise, before ar idance is given. And, similarly, virtue ethics must specify who is to count as a virtuous age So far, the three are all in the same position. (p s/t Virtue ethics thus defines a virtuous agent as one who has and exercises certain character traits or virtues the virtues then being defined as those character traits a human being needs for eudaimonia-that is, to flourish and live well as a human being. As Peterson and Seligman(2004)found, there is a strong convergence across time, place, and cultures on what the main virtues are Another response to the circularity objection is to point out that seeking guidance from a virtuous agent, far from being a mystery, is an everyday experience, especially perhaps in the helping professions. If I am unsure how to act in a given situation or grey area and I want to act honestly (with integ rity), I will seek out someone I know to be honest, indeed more reliably honest than I (If I want a way out of what honesty I might look for som at fudging of this sort. I do not have to be a person of great probity myself to recognize such a friend or colleague, just as I do not have to be a carpenter to appreciate a well-made table(Boswell, 2008). Similarly, if I see the need for prudence or sound practical judgment, I will consult someone I respect for this virtue. If I am lucky, this may even be my supervisor Compared with utilitarianism or deontology, which reduce ethical questions to one or a few basic principles, virtue ethics draws on the rich human vocabulary that societies have de-e veloped to define an action, not only as right or wrong, but, in the case of the latter, more specifically as dishonest, cowardly90 Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare necessary tools for doing it were not available in the current state of philosophy. One response to this problem is to point out that in terms of giving guidance for action, utilitarianism and Kantian de￾ontology are again in no better shape. As Hursthouse (1999) puts it: Act utilitarianism must specify what are to count as the best consequences, and deontology what is to count as a correct moral rule, producing a second premise, before any guidance is given. And, similarly, virtue ethics must specify who is to count as a virtuous agent. So far, the three are all in the same position, (p. 28) Virtue ethics thus defines a virtuous agent as one who has and exercises certain character traits or virtues, the virtues then being defined as those character traits a human being needs for eudaimonia—that is, to flourish and live well as a human being. As Peterson and Seligman (2004) foimd, there is a strong convergence across time, place, and cultures on what the main virtues are. Another response to the circularity objection is to point out that seeking guidance from a virtuous agent, far from being a mystery, is an everyday experience, especially perhaps in the helping professions. If I am unsure how to act in a given situation or grey area and I want to act honestly (with integ￾rity), I will seek out someone I know to be honest, indeed more reliably honest than I. (If I want a way out of what honesty may require, I might look for someone I know to be clever at fudging of this sort.) I do not have to be a person of great probity myself to recognize such a friend or colleague, just as I do not have to be a carpenter to appreciate a well-made table (Boswell, 2008). Similarly, if I see the need for prudence or sound practical judgment, I will consult someone I respect for this virtue. If I am lucky, this may even be my supervisor! Gompared with utilitarianism or deontology, which reduce ethical questions to one or a few basic principles, virtue ethics draws on the rich human vocabulary that societies have de￾veloped to define an action, not only as right or wrong, but, in the case of the latter, more specifically as dishonest, cowardly