Virtue Ethics suggests that what we do affects a person's moral character. Aristotle suggests that “virtue discovers the means and chooses it deliberately.” (Aristotle, 1982) In this situation it would have been a vice deficit to torment the owners of the animal and continue to report the problem and an excess of vice to simply leave the dog exposed to the elements knowing that it could be harmful. Virtue ethics suggests taking all the facts into consideration and, based on our beliefs, doing what is in the best interests of all parties. Although in one sense the action of stealing the dog was positive, the consequence was that the woman was charged with a criminal offense for this action. As suggested earlier in this article, often do the right thing. However, the woman's act of taking the dog in this situation does not necessarily fit the greatest good for the greatest number of people scenario; fits the greatest good for the greatest number of people (which means canine). In this regard, the recommendation should determine whether “the action is permitted” (Tamu.edu, 2016) by those sets of rules and act accordingly. The upside is the pleasure of knowing you did what you thought was the right thing to do to save your dog from exposure to freezing temperatures. The bad part of all this is that if everyone took it upon themselves to take ownership of other people's property because they felt it was the right thing to do, we would have higher crime rates in our cities. In the end he broke the law regardless of how he felt about the situation, so the end did not justify the (Thomson, 1953). My decision in this case should have allowed the authorities to handle the situation. Virtue ethics teaches us that we should make sure we know all the facts and use them to make a decision based on our ethical beliefs. I think if I felt that the situation needed an immediate solution, instead of stealing the dog, I would have tried to talk to the owners to find a solution. Perhaps offering to buy the dog or offering to help fix it would have avoided many undue consequences later imposed on the woman. There was no indication in this story that the owners only wanted to keep the dog because the dog was for protection. Considering these facts, offering to relieve them of responsibility would have been the best thing to do. Aristotle also emphasizes that “the function of a man is the exercise of his incorporeal faculties or “soul” in accordance with, or at least not separate from, a rational principle.” Therefore, trying to resolve the situation amicably is the best path to take. Considering the facts as laid out in this case, if you apply the reasoning, I don't think I want to break a law for something that could easily be resolved in a more civilized context. Therefore, the decision to talk to the owners and offer a solution would be in everyone's best interest