Here is my rambling answer to your question.
I like virtue ethics, and I see it as compatible. I think that EA would be a slightly better movement is the level of utilitarianism was reduced by 5% and the level of virtue ethics was increased by 5%. My rough thoughts are that while I am influenced by various ethical ideas/schools of thought, I tend to be slightly less of a utilitarian and slightly more of a virtue ethicist than the EA-aligned people I see (which is admittedly a very small and non-representative sample).
I view "being a good person" not merely as "having large positive impact" but also conducting oneself properly. Thinking critically, treating people respectfully, and being honest are things I value, not as rules in a deontological sense, but as aspirations for the type of person I want to be. I find stoicism very influential on me, and the classic grouping of wisdom, justice, courage, and moderation lines up nicely with the type of person I want to be. This is, of course, aspiration. I am still very far from those ideals.
My rough impression (again, from a small and non-representative sample) is that EAs tend to not value justice very much, not value "proper conduct" very much, and not value wisdom very much. I find it strange to see people doing things that are not respectful of others, to see people not being gentle or kind or welcoming, to see people unaware of what causes happiness in themselves.
Honestly also seems undervalued among EAs. I dislike seeing people use inflated/exaggerated titles and descriptions, such as having a title of "director" or "president" when in reality they a working manager of one person at an organization they founded, or "invited to speak at Cambridge" when it was really EA Cambridge that invited them to present to a student group on a Zoom call (not real examples). Maybe these people have more impact as a result of this polishing/deception, but I wish that these EAs were more virtuous.
In a simplistic toy example, I find it odd that the person who turned $100 into $200 is lauded, and the person who turned $10 into $50 is ignored. I often think less of "what has this person accomplished" than "what choices has this person made, considering what this person has accomplished and considering what they started with and considering all the other challenges and assistance they had."
The above thoughts are sort of some of the reasons why I like Julie Wise and her writings so much. I don't know anything about her family background, but her writings strike me as much more humble and pragmatic, and are not littered with "I went to an expensive school" and "look how impressive I am" which I see elsewhere.
This isn't a substantive answer like those above - but I think you can get a lot of Effective Altruism off the ground with 2 premises that are widely agreed by most moral philosophies but are generally under-attended:
1) Consequences matter (which any moral philosophy worth its salt agrees, although to varying extent on what else matters)
2) Pay attention to scope, i.e. 100X lives saved is way, way better than saving one life.
There's a lot more complexity and nuance to views in Effective Altruism, but I think this is a common core (in addition to lives having equal moral value etc.) that is robust for almost all plausible ethical approaches.
Richard Ngo writes about this here.
Thanks for linking that! I couldn't remember where I had read the framing first
In 80K Hours' What is social impact? A definition, under the subheading "Is this just utilitarianism?", Ben Todd wrote (bolded parts mine):
So this mirrors Ben's comment above.
I'm personally quite glad to see this made explicit in an introductory high-traffic article like this.