After reading the chapters, i didn't really have much to argue against Adams with, instead i found one area to be particularly interesting. I found the section in chapter 9 about moral frailty to be very convincing. After reading Doris I truly questioned whether we could rely on virtues because it seemed our character traits were not consistent. But Adams makes some great points against Doris, for example we must consider whether virtuous motives are imperfect or perfect obligations. The dime in the phone booth experiment solely examines the virtue of helpfulness which Adams characterizes as an imperfect obligation. In a sense situational variations will always play a role in helpfulness because we are not always obligated to be helpful when every opportunity arises. Since the experiment is examining a virtue which already depends upon situational factors, it makes perfect sense that we would find situational influence on this character trait.
I also found it really interesting that with Adams definition of excellence, he could accommodate fragile virtues. He explains that invulnerability to temptations is implausible, and excellence can be admired even if it is fragile. The example he uses is one of an excellently working watch that isn't waterproof. As humans we do have flaws and we are fragile; to expect us to always act virtuously seems implausible. We are bound to make a mistake which might show our character traits are not situation independent, but just because we act differently in various situations does not lessen the value of our virtuous nature.

Another thing that i found extremely interesting was the fact that those who were defiant in the Milgram's study were mostly well educated in ethics. If ethics can have such a positive impact in our decision making skills, it seems ethics should be more strongly emphasized in our educations in order to prevent "obedient" subjects who could potentially harm others, as was the case in the study and in Nazi Germany.