The fact that Sabrina has been so emotional is something I claim is unrealistic. But even if we suspend disbelief, this is an unusual issue because Homura Akemi's moral right to make her own decisions is at stake. You are knowledgable enough to see how this can easily follow from a virtue ethical approach, are you not?
Sabrina is an emotional teenager in a fucking universe where being an emotional and irrational teenager literally gives you superpowers. And Homura's goddamn moral rights are not going to be undermined by her two girlfriends playing matchmaker, holy shit.
In the long run, I should note that it is the job of the GM to clarify all questions on a universe they made. Surely you must accept it is impossible for me to know if Sabrina knows virtue ethics or not unless Firnagzen tells me?
Uh, no, absolutely not. The GM's job is to provide a clear picture of the situation so that players may react to the situation in a sufficiently informed manner. This does not require answering every question we ask, or knowing absolutely everything in Sabrina's head, especially when SHE HAS AMNESIA AS A PLOT POINT.
Writers and GMs reserve the right to withhold information until dramatically appropriate even if it inconveniences us. That's...literally like an entire encyclopedia's worth of tropes, writing techniques, and such.
linkhyrule5, you're a smart person. I refer you to the example I edited into my post directly above yours. How could Sabrina's internal thought process possibly justify her outright ignoring what she's learned in philosophy classes, assuming she has them in her head?
She doesn't need to justify it. Just because I read about Deontology or Communism or whatever doesn't mean I have to follow a single thing about them. Sabrina is a human being that acts irrationally and emotionally and in response to her gut feelings, intuition, conscience, and what she thinks is a good idea at the time. She has no obligation to form a Grand Theory of Ethics and Philosophy before taking a single action.
It is, in fact, literally impossible to do so. Any ethics professor will tell you as such, and most people get through life by acting on different moral systems depending on which one is more suitable for the current dilemma. Real life human beings can be Deontologist on Principle A, Utilitarian in Situation 4, Consequentialist in Pattern Blue Alpha, and Virtue Ethicist in World-Line 999994.
To use a more concrete example in case you reject that one- let's say, hypothetically speaking, that Sabrina has read and memorised the works of, to use a clear example of a utilitarian philosopher, Peter Singer. I don't know that she has, but if you have she has. This would have to affect her decisions. How can you justify Sabrina, as a character, having memorised, say, Peter Singer, and yet ignoring their teachings entirely in their thoughts?
Because seriously why should she give a fuck about Peter Singer in priority above any other guy she's ever heard about who had an opinion on right or wrong? Peter Singer isn't ~~More Moral~~ than the average man, nor does he have a goddamn diploma saying he has more Ethics molecules in his body. He came up with ideas and wrote them down. Ethics, being entirely fucking subjective and of no worth or existence outside of an observing mind, has no right or wrong answers.
So whether Sabrina knows about specific ethical theories is completely and utterly irrelevant. She will act based on what she thinks is right or wrong regardless of what anyone else thinks, and what she deems to be such is based on forum consensus as our choices become her actions.
Therefore, if you want to convince anyone to follow a different mode of action, your goddamn logical discourses and hypotheticals are less than worthless. You need to appeal to people's Pathos as much as their Logos. No one gives a shit how logically sound your theory is, for example, if it means throwing a baby to an alligator. Even if you can logically prove it was moral to do so.
Now shut the fuck up before I call a mod.