This paper examines the ethics of medical professionals and argues that both duty ethics and virtue ethics are required of them. It is argued that Aristotle’s virtue ethics, which emphasizes practical excellence, does not conflict with Kant’s duty ethics, which holds that ethical conduct is justified on the basis of universal rules; instead, these two approaches to ethics are in fact complementary. The validity of this argument is found in the writings of E. Pellegrino, who believes that medical practitioners are necessarily ethical and that ethical practice is based on two things. First, according to Pellegrino, physicians must respond to the suffering of patients. The reason for this comes from our duty to uphold the dignified right of all human beings to be respected without exception and also from Kant’s categorical imperative, which demands that people be treated as ends-in-themselves rather than simply means to an end. Second, if the dignity of all human beings is important, then the dignity, not only of patients, but also that of medical practitioners, must be upheld. Pellegrino proposes virtue ethics, which requires excellence for the purpose of goodness, as a way of preserving human dignity. Thus, the relationship between physicians and patients should be embodied in the best practical wisdom on the basis of defending universal rules. It is the attitude of the practitioner to respond to the needs of the patient, and this response must be implemented with practical wisdom and respect between the practitioner and the patient. In the end, the professional ethics of Pellegrino is a virtue ethic that embraces duty ethics. According to Pellegrino, a physician’s medical practice is a defense of human dignity and a realization of a better life for individuals and communities. Thus, what is required of medical practitioners is both the categorical imperative and practical wisdom (phronēsis).