>>97945>without consequenceBut there is a consequence: the consequence of no longer upholding whatever conduct you did before.
Even without objective external values, as long as you have internalized moral code, not even up to strict adherence, but to at least some degree (which I think is necessary to for being "virtuous", someone that randomly happens to have one's actions align with morals or that is following some moral code solely out of external factors like fear of repercussions or social admiration isn't someone I would call "virtuous"), living your life with knowledge that you have done something in stark contrast to that moral code means that you will need to decide between either:
1) admitting that you weren't virtuous; happens, you could say that it reflects poorly on your character, but only in the same way not being a top athlete reflects poorly on your physical condition
2) claiming that you were in fact virtuous and that somehow those actions weren't actually performed at all or weren't performed by actual you, whatever it would mean
3) claiming that you were virtuous despite actually committing misdeed; I will let you figure out how you would try to achieve that
With 1), we explicitly end up with wives that weren't virtuous. With 2) and 3), those wives might successfully convince themselves, but even should they succeed at some point, they will have a period of dissonance leading to regret, thus giving a tangible consequence. For a virtuous person to not even feel guilt after misdeed, taking away even that consequence, you would need to tamper with internal perception and values of such person, but at that point maybe those wives from 2) were actually right.