Scott Alexander argues that virtue ethics is neither how people naturally think about morality nor an effective way to make people more moral, proposing alternative methods and using a grammar analogy to illustrate his point.
Longer summary
Scott Alexander critiques virtue ethics, arguing that it is neither how people naturally think about morality nor an effective way to make people more moral. He describes his own experience of morality as contrary to virtue ethics in many ways. Scott then suggests alternative methods for improving morality, such as certain beliefs and practices, with meditation being his top recommendation. He concludes that virtue ethics doesn't satisfy the criteria for effectively grounding morality and that there are many better alternatives. The post ends with an analogy comparing virtue ethics to a hypothetical 'virtue grammar' to further illustrate his point.
Shorter summary