I think your post is aimed too high. Nyan is not trying to resolve the virtue ethics / deontology / consequentilist dispute.

Instead, he's trying to use vocabulary to break naive folks out of the good --> preferences --> good.

At that level of confusion, the distinction between good, virtue, or utility is not yet relevant. Only after people stop defining good in an essentially circular fashion is productive discussion of different moral theories even possible.

Attacking Nyan for presuming moral realism is fighting the hypothetical.