Obligation of Virtue

It seems Adams wants to make a distinction between ethics centered around virtues and ethics centered around actions. This distinction is that while virtue ethics deals with a commitment of character, ethics based on the moral rightness and/or wrongness of actions is committed to obligation. His example is of a shopkeeper who is honest because morality obliges him to do so, not because honesty is a part of his character. Although Adams, acknowledge that these concepts intertwine at times, I think for the most part he wants to keep these two notions separate. He says on page 7 that guilt and the feeling of owing something to someone is not a trait that comes from “excellent personal character” or virtues. But in the very next paragraph Adams groups the concept of “respect[ing] the rights of others” along with other virtues such as justice and conscientiousness. My complaint is that aren’t these the same? Is it really not a virtue to feel remorse or guilt for one’s actions because you respect them and wronged them in some way? If Adams feels that way because he believes the virtuous person would never put themselves in a position to feel guilt for an action, then I think that his arguments on virtue ethics are a moot point because no one is 100% virtuous and perfect all the time; which is why I feel obligation and virtue are more closely connected that Adams wants to believe. When a person is born into this world, they are obliged to have certain intentions in order to be virtuous by Adam’s account and pretty much every other author’s account we read so far. If someone wants to be totally good whether it be through virtues or actions then they are obliged to do so at some point because no has had the “perfectly right” intentions and/or made the “perfectly right” choices all throughout his or her life.