system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
What are the strongest arguments that virtue ethics has going for it?
gpt
Assuming that, by 'arguments that virtue ethics has going for it', you mean something like 'arguments that character is morally salient', here are a couple of quick arguments that might motivate that idea:

(1) Our everyday moral practice involves morally evaluating a person's character just as much as their actions. We say that people are good or bad, charitable or greedy, etc. This seems to be as much a part of our basic moral reasoning as saying that actions are good or bad, kind or mean, etc. In fact, we often use the exact same words to describe character and actions, which often makes it a bit tricky to tell which of the two we are evaluating at any given moment. These seems to indicate that we have the same sort of pretheoretic reasons for taking character to be morally charged as we do for taking actions to be morally charged.

(2) The consistency of people's moral behavior over time indicates that some underlying personality traits might be involved. This can generate moral significance for those traits - which virtue ethicists would typically call character - in a number of ways. One might be to say that we should be interested in character primarily as a motivator of action. That is - the morality of actions is primary, but this grants a non-trivial moral importance to character. The other way around would be to say that the rightness and wrongness of actions is inherited from the moral properties of the kind of person who typically performs those actions. That is, striking someone is thought to be bad because of what it indicates about the kind of person you are. This is probably a bit less intuitive than the other way around, but one way of making it more plausible is to consider the way that beliefs and desires - which are plausibly part of a persons character or personality if understood as dispositions - impact moral judgment. Someone who gives money to a charity for the wrong reason (say, to learn the location of a lockbox full of donations that they later intend to steal) seems to be doing something wrong, and wrong because of their motives. To what extent a person's motivations are a component of their character, this may indicate that character underlies our moral evaluations of actions in a more substantial way than it might seem at first glance.

(3) Thinking about character seems to be the best way to conceptualize moral growth. We don't just want people to more reliably produce good behaviors, we want them to become good people. Think of a parent making their child apologize 'like they mean it' - we don't just want them to say the words, we want them to say them in the right way for (presumably) the right reasons. We don't want a former thief to avoid stealing purely because they don't want to be caught (though that is certainly better than them stealing). We'd rather they feel that stealing is wrong and so no longer desire to steal even when it would be convenient to do so. We have similar concerns in many morally significant relationships - family, friends, coworkers, etc. 

Beyond this basic idea that character is morally relevant, virtue ethicists differ considerably about pretty much everything - so a blanket argument for virtue ethics would be hard to articulate.

It is worth noting that one popular way of presenting virtue ethics - as an alternative to consequentialism and deontology - is misleading because it is a comparison at different levels of categorization. Trying to compare these directly is like comparing all of books to call of duty and pokemon. Both call of duty and pokemon are categories in themselves - series with numerous installments - but they are still of a lower categorical level than books. The appropriate comparison for books would be - probably - video games. Likewise, the appropriate comparison for pure virtue (or character-oriented) ethics is pure act-oriented ethics - of which consequentialism and deontology are kinds. Pure character-oriented ethics and pure act-oriented ethics differ on a basic principle - what sort of thing has moral significance, character or actions? Motivating virtue ethics against consequentialism and deontology is a little bit awkward, because you really need to contrast to the underlying assumption that consequentialism and deontology share. As a result, it is hard to get the same sort of highly detailed back and forth debate you see between consequentialism and deontology going between either of these views and virtue ethics. The debate is properly located at a much more basic level. 

It is also worth noting that we could have a hybrid act/character ethics, which takes both to be morally significant. This seems to me to be the typical 'folk ethics' view, the way that most people outside of philosophy think about morality.