Oddbean

I'm not being obtuse. If man is more virtuous because of his greater ability to embody virtue, meaning to enact good effect on others than woman because of biological characteristics, a rich man should be considered more virtuous because of his greater ability to embody virtue than a poor man, because of his economic characteristics. Where is the flaw in this reasoning?

There is no flaw. A particular rich man is not necessarily more virtuous than a poor man, but the most-virtuous rich man will be more virtuous than the most-virtuous poor man because he has more capacity to be so. He can give the entirety of his money away and that is more money in absolute terms, even if it is the same amount in relative terms (100%).

You're watering down virtue to be just a fancy form of consequentialism, when it isn't. The virtue of an action resides on the motivation and goal of an action, not in its results. A man who attempts to jump in front of a bullet to save an innocent life but fails is much more virtuous than someone who happens to trip and fall in the path of said bullet, even though the former fails to save a life and the latter succeeds, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, but Aristotle also agrees that courage (i.e. honorable self-sacrifice) is the highest of virtues. Further, he says, "But since the signs of virtue and such things as are the works and sufferings of a good man are noble, it necessarily follows that all the works and signs of courage and all courageous acts are also noble... Those things of which the reward is honor are noble; also those which are done for honor rather than money. Also, those desirable things which a man does not do for his own sake; things which are absolutely good, which a man has done for the sake of his country, while neglecting his own interests; things which are naturally good; and not such as are good for the individual, since such things are inspired by selfish motives"