Final answer:
Virtue Ethics and Act Utilitarianism may disagree on a case where a judge falsely convicts an innocent person to prevent riots. Virtue Ethics would consider it unethical due to the compromised virtues, while Act Utilitarianism might justify it if it maximizes happiness.
Step-by-step explanation:
An example where Virtue Ethics and Act Utilitarianism might disagree on the morality of an action can be seen in a situation where a judge falsely convicts an innocent person to prevent riots that could harm many. Act utilitarianism might justify this, considering it maximizes overall happiness by preventing potential harm to a greater number of people. However, Virtue Ethics, focusing on the moral character, would deem this action unethical as it compromises justice and integrity which are key virtues.
Virtue Ethics emphasizes that moral actions flow from a person's character. In the example mentioned, this theory would view falsely convicting an innocent person as fundamentally wrong, regardless of the consequences, because a virtuous individual upholds justice and honesty. Conversely, Act Utilitarianism evaluates the morality of actions by the greatest happiness principle, where the end result of maximizing overall happiness and welfare dictates whether an action is morally acceptable.
These contrasting views demonstrate the complexity of moral philosophy and the challenges in applying singular ethical theories to real-world dilemmas.