VALUES

[Veritas Aequitas]

What would you have instead of reason? You will find knowledge and fine judgement are better than anything else for predicting the best course of future action.

Judgment of whatever type (fine or otherwise) needs reason.
The alternatives to reason are instinct, guessing, intuition, hunch n the likes.

Yes, those plus obedience to authority including the authority of priests, peddlers, PR specialists, old fashioned royalty and aristocrats, popular public figures such as actors some of whom have turned into politicians, and popular war lords.

Some individuals have better judgement and know more than other individuals. Empirical knowledge, reasoned judgement, and values are inseparable. Human freedom of choice is perhaps not important to you as a supreme value. However if it is, then good men work towards every man being able to maximise his choices.

Good judgments need the faculty of reason, i.e. fine reasoning not crude reasoning.
But good judgments are in a way useless if they cannot be converted into actions.
Some people can give very good and sound advice but they cannot put those into practice themselves.
Thus the more critical point is the necessary neural mechanisms to effectively connect and convert sound judgments into virtuous actions.
This is why wisdom and philosophy [ability to apply good judgments into practice] i.e. 'walk the talk'.

So how do we build effective neural mechanisms to translate good judgment into its corresponding virtuous actions. Here Buddhism's 4NT and 8FP is most appropriate and most effective if we incorporate the neurosciences.

[Peter Holmes]

Judgment of whatever type (fine or otherwise) needs reason.
The alternatives to reason are instinct, guessing, intuition, hunch n the likes.

Yes, those plus obedience to authority including the authority of priests, peddlers, PR specialists, old fashioned royalty and aristocrats, popular public figures such as actors some of whom have turned into politicians, and popular war lords.

Some individuals have better judgement and know more than other individuals. Empirical knowledge, reasoned judgement, and values are inseparable. Human freedom of choice is perhaps not important to you as a supreme value. However if it is, then good men work towards every man being able to maximise his choices.

Good judgments need the faculty of reason, i.e. fine reasoning not crude reasoning.
But good judgments are in a way useless if they cannot be converted into actions.
Some people can give very good and sound advice but they cannot put those into practice themselves.
Thus the more critical point is the necessary neural mechanisms to effectively connect and convert sound judgments into virtuous actions.
This is why wisdom and philosophy [ability to apply good judgments into practice] i.e. 'walk the talk'.

So how do we build effective neural mechanisms to translate good judgment into its corresponding virtuous actions. Here Buddhism's 4NT and 8FP is most appropriate and most effective if we incorporate the neurosciences.

So you know what constitutes 'good judgement' and 'virtuous actions'? And those aren't matters of belief or opinion? Perhaps they're examples of relatively objective things - products of intersubjective consensus? Collectively thinking something is so actually makes it so?

[Sculptor]

Judgment of whatever type (fine or otherwise) needs reason.
The alternatives to reason are instinct, guessing, intuition, hunch n the likes.

Yes, those plus obedience to authority including the authority of priests, peddlers, PR specialists, old fashioned royalty and aristocrats, popular public figures such as actors some of whom have turned into politicians, and popular war lords.

Some individuals have better judgement and know more than other individuals. Empirical knowledge, reasoned judgement, and values are inseparable. Human freedom of choice is perhaps not important to you as a supreme value. However if it is, then good men work towards every man being able to maximise his choices.

Good judgments need the faculty of reason, i.e. fine reasoning not crude reasoning.
But good judgments are in a way useless if they cannot be converted into actions.
Some people can give very good and sound advice but they cannot put those into practice themselves.
Thus the more critical point is the necessary neural mechanisms to effectively connect and convert sound judgments into virtuous actions.
This is why wisdom and philosophy [ability to apply good judgments into practice] i.e. 'walk the talk'.

So how do we build effective neural mechanisms to translate good judgment into its corresponding virtuous actions. Here Buddhism's 4NT and 8FP is most appropriate and most effective if we incorporate the neurosciences.

I think good value judgements require a lot more than neural pathways. Good information is vital, but more than that - a stable an emotional intelligence. Without an emotional input no judgement could ever consider human values.
A super computer might be able to make clear, and cogent decisions but utterly lack any good reason to, say, preserve life, or consider quality of life.

[Belinda]

Judgment of whatever type (fine or otherwise) needs reason.
The alternatives to reason are instinct, guessing, intuition, hunch n the likes.

Yes, those plus obedience to authority including the authority of priests, peddlers, PR specialists, old fashioned royalty and aristocrats, popular public figures such as actors some of whom have turned into politicians, and popular war lords.

Some individuals have better judgement and know more than other individuals. Empirical knowledge, reasoned judgement, and values are inseparable. Human freedom of choice is perhaps not important to you as a supreme value. However if it is, then good men work towards every man being able to maximise his choices.

Good judgments need the faculty of reason, i.e. fine reasoning not crude reasoning.
But good judgments are in a way useless if they cannot be converted into actions.
Some people can give very good and sound advice but they cannot put those into practice themselves.
Thus the more critical point is the necessary neural mechanisms to effectively connect and convert sound judgments into virtuous actions.
This is why wisdom and philosophy [ability to apply good judgments into practice] i.e. 'walk the talk'.

So how do we build effective neural mechanisms to translate good judgment into its corresponding virtuous actions. Here Buddhism's 4NT and 8FP is most appropriate and most effective if we incorporate the neurosciences.

People need reliable information and need to be educated for action. Neural pathways are caused by learning. We can learn to be active, to be able to make decisions unless there is a recogisable disease like depression , or thyroxine deficiency.

[Belinda]

Yes, those plus obedience to authority including the authority of priests, peddlers, PR specialists, old fashioned royalty and aristocrats, popular public figures such as actors some of whom have turned into politicians, and popular war lords.

Some individuals have better judgement and know more than other individuals. Empirical knowledge, reasoned judgement, and values are inseparable. Human freedom of choice is perhaps not important to you as a supreme value. However if it is, then good men work towards every man being able to maximise his choices.

Good judgments need the faculty of reason, i.e. fine reasoning not crude reasoning.
But good judgments are in a way useless if they cannot be converted into actions.
Some people can give very good and sound advice but they cannot put those into practice themselves.
Thus the more critical point is the necessary neural mechanisms to effectively connect and convert sound judgments into virtuous actions.
This is why wisdom and philosophy [ability to apply good judgments into practice] i.e. 'walk the talk'.

So how do we build effective neural mechanisms to translate good judgment into its corresponding virtuous actions. Here Buddhism's 4NT and 8FP is most appropriate and most effective if we incorporate the neurosciences.

I think good value judgements require a lot more than neural pathways. Good information is vital, but more than that - a stable an emotional intelligence. Without an emotional input no judgement could ever consider human values.
A super computer might be able to make clear, and cogent decisions but utterly lack any good reason to, say, preserve life, or consider quality of life.

Emotional intelligence is why left wing people who are emotionally intelligent are generally more intelligent than right wing people whose emotional intelligence is stunted.

[Sculptor]

Good judgments need the faculty of reason, i.e. fine reasoning not crude reasoning.
But good judgments are in a way useless if they cannot be converted into actions.
Some people can give very good and sound advice but they cannot put those into practice themselves.
Thus the more critical point is the necessary neural mechanisms to effectively connect and convert sound judgments into virtuous actions.
This is why wisdom and philosophy [ability to apply good judgments into practice] i.e. 'walk the talk'.

So how do we build effective neural mechanisms to translate good judgment into its corresponding virtuous actions. Here Buddhism's 4NT and 8FP is most appropriate and most effective if we incorporate the neurosciences.

I think good value judgements require a lot more than neural pathways. Good information is vital, but more than that - a stable an emotional intelligence. Without an emotional input no judgement could ever consider human values.
A super computer might be able to make clear, and cogent decisions but utterly lack any good reason to, say, preserve life, or consider quality of life.

Emotional intelligence is why left wing people who are emotionally intelligent are generally more intelligent than right wing people whose emotional intelligence is stunted.

I think we can agree on that.
Right wingers seem to outnumber the left. War, patriotism, greed, prejudice, all seem to get the upper hand.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, those plus obedience to authority including the authority of priests, peddlers, PR specialists, old fashioned royalty and aristocrats, popular public figures such as actors some of whom have turned into politicians, and popular war lords.

Some individuals have better judgement and know more than other individuals. Empirical knowledge, reasoned judgement, and values are inseparable. Human freedom of choice is perhaps not important to you as a supreme value. However if it is, then good men work towards every man being able to maximise his choices.

Good judgments need the faculty of reason, i.e. fine reasoning not crude reasoning.
But good judgments are in a way useless if they cannot be converted into actions.
Some people can give very good and sound advice but they cannot put those into practice themselves.
Thus the more critical point is the necessary neural mechanisms to effectively connect and convert sound judgments into virtuous actions.
This is why wisdom and philosophy [ability to apply good judgments into practice] i.e. 'walk the talk'.

So how do we build effective neural mechanisms to translate good judgment into its corresponding virtuous actions. Here Buddhism's 4NT and 8FP is most appropriate and most effective if we incorporate the neurosciences.

So you know what constitutes 'good judgement' and 'virtuous actions'? And those aren't matters of belief or opinion? Perhaps they're examples of relatively objective things - products of intersubjective consensus? Collectively thinking something is so actually makes it so?

I have already argued and presented to you what is the objective highest good and therefrom a hierarchy of various degrees of 'good' i.e. virtues.

Yes, they are relative objective moral oughts verified from empirical and philosophical reasonings, i.e. products of intersubjective consensus.

Note, there are two types of judgment, i.e. conscious deliberate and unconscious spontaneous.
A malignant psychopath can consciously deliberate act out whatever is labeled as virtuous, that is not morality but leveraged by evil.

Morality-proper is more concern with unconscious spontaneous than conscious deliberate judgments leveraged on the inherent moral faculty within the brain.
These spontaneous unconscious good judgments are based on the effective neural connections that enable the resultant actions to be virtuous.
These effective neural connections has to be developed and maintained via wisdom and regular practices [exceptions are those born with it]. The analogy is the tennis champion who played spontaneously and winning in his games.

If you have read Hume's Treatise and Enquiry, you would have noted Hume is talking about the same thing I have presented above [except the neural points].

Hume 'is/ought' limitation is confined to absolute-moral-objectives like those from the theists and the ontological ones you are imagining.

In his books, Hume in a way recognized relative-moral-objectives within society, humanity and the human species.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, those plus obedience to authority including the authority of priests, peddlers, PR specialists, old fashioned royalty and aristocrats, popular public figures such as actors some of whom have turned into politicians, and popular war lords.

Some individuals have better judgement and know more than other individuals. Empirical knowledge, reasoned judgement, and values are inseparable. Human freedom of choice is perhaps not important to you as a supreme value. However if it is, then good men work towards every man being able to maximise his choices.

Good judgments need the faculty of reason, i.e. fine reasoning not crude reasoning.
But good judgments are in a way useless if they cannot be converted into actions.
Some people can give very good and sound advice but they cannot put those into practice themselves.
Thus the more critical point is the necessary neural mechanisms to effectively connect and convert sound judgments into virtuous actions.
This is why wisdom and philosophy [ability to apply good judgments into practice] i.e. 'walk the talk'.

So how do we build effective neural mechanisms to translate good judgment into its corresponding virtuous actions. Here Buddhism's 4NT and 8FP is most appropriate and most effective if we incorporate the neurosciences.

I think good value judgements require a lot more than neural pathways. Good information is vital, but more than that - a stable an emotional intelligence. Without an emotional input no judgement could ever consider human values.
A super computer might be able to make clear, and cogent decisions but utterly lack any good reason to, say, preserve life, or consider quality of life.

DNA/RNA wise ALL humans are embedded with an inherent faculty of morality, i.e. to be good which is not active in the majority of people.

Example, DNA/RNA ALL humans are embedded with the inherent faculty of intellect/intelligence but it is not active in the majority of people. However the trend of intelligence from 10,000 years ago to the present, is increasing on average.

Information is secondary, it is merely the input into the morality machinery and model. What is critical is the efficiency of the mechanisms within the moral model inherent within the human brain.
Emotional Intelligence is important but it is also secondary and thus is another input into the moral machinery and model.

One clue to the inherent moral neural machinery is the evidence that there are some people who are naturally born with good moral and act virtuous at all times without being taught about morality and emotional intelligence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Good judgments need the faculty of reason, i.e. fine reasoning not crude reasoning.
But good judgments are in a way useless if they cannot be converted into actions.
Some people can give very good and sound advice but they cannot put those into practice themselves.
Thus the more critical point is the necessary neural mechanisms to effectively connect and convert sound judgments into virtuous actions.
This is why wisdom and philosophy [ability to apply good judgments into practice] i.e. 'walk the talk'.

So how do we build effective neural mechanisms to translate good judgment into its corresponding virtuous actions. Here Buddhism's 4NT and 8FP is most appropriate and most effective if we incorporate the neurosciences.

I think good value judgements require a lot more than neural pathways. Good information is vital, but more than that - a stable an emotional intelligence. Without an emotional input no judgement could ever consider human values.
A super computer might be able to make clear, and cogent decisions but utterly lack any good reason to, say, preserve life, or consider quality of life.

Emotional intelligence is why left wing people who are emotionally intelligent are generally more intelligent than right wing people whose emotional intelligence is stunted.

Do you have researched evidence on the above?
It is more likely due to your prejudice and confirmation bias.

Yes, there are extremes from both side, but on average the left-wingers are the worst of the lot in term of rational discussions.

E.g. how can left-wingers like those from Antifa have high emotional intelligence.
From my personal experience with left-wingers, they are more "emotional" than being emotional intelligent.
In most cases, I have came across, left-wingers do not persist in rational discussions with arguments and reasons but they merely get emotional with all sort of outbursts or avoidances.

Note this emotional outburst and madness from Ben Affleck had while Bill Maher and Sam Harris were trying to argue rationally with facts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vln9D81eO60

[Belinda]

I think good value judgements require a lot more than neural pathways. Good information is vital, but more than that - a stable an emotional intelligence. Without an emotional input no judgement could ever consider human values.
A super computer might be able to make clear, and cogent decisions but utterly lack any good reason to, say, preserve life, or consider quality of life.

Emotional intelligence is why left wing people who are emotionally intelligent are generally more intelligent than right wing people whose emotional intelligence is stunted.

Do you have researched evidence on the above?
It is more likely due to your prejudice and confirmation bias.

Yes, there are extremes from both side, but on average the left-wingers are the worst of the lot in term of rational discussions.

E.g. how can left-wingers like those from Antifa have high emotional intelligence.
From my personal experience with left-wingers, they are more "emotional" than being emotional intelligent.
In most cases, I have came across, left-wingers do not persist in rational discussions with arguments and reasons but they merely get emotional with all sort of outbursts or avoidances.

Note this emotional outburst and madness from Ben Affleck had while Bill Maher and Sam Harris were trying to argue rationally with facts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vln9D81eO60

The evidence I bring to the table is political, especially present day British politics, and to a more limited extent American politics, including South America.
For instance the British Conservative Party neglected to lay up stores of personal protective equipment against an inevitable pandemic, and moreover starved the National Health Service of powers and money. The British Conservative party, while there are a few good men in it, tends to neglect welfare of the poor while steering profits from economic growth towards the already rich.

[Peter Holmes]

Emotional intelligence is why left wing people who are emotionally intelligent are generally more intelligent than right wing people whose emotional intelligence is stunted.

Do you have researched evidence on the above?
It is more likely due to your prejudice and confirmation bias.

Yes, there are extremes from both side, but on average the left-wingers are the worst of the lot in term of rational discussions.

E.g. how can left-wingers like those from Antifa have high emotional intelligence.
From my personal experience with left-wingers, they are more "emotional" than being emotional intelligent.
In most cases, I have came across, left-wingers do not persist in rational discussions with arguments and reasons but they merely get emotional with all sort of outbursts or avoidances.

Note this emotional outburst and madness from Ben Affleck had while Bill Maher and Sam Harris were trying to argue rationally with facts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vln9D81eO60

The evidence I bring to the table is political, especially present day British politics, and to a more limited extent American politics, including South America.
For instance the British Conservative Party neglected to lay up stores of personal protective equipment against an inevitable pandemic, and moreover starved the National Health Service of powers and money. The British Conservative party, while there are a few good men in it, tends to neglect welfare of the poor while steering profits from economic growth towards the already rich.

Couldn't agree more, Belinda. To be conservative is, roughly, to want to keep things as they are. So, if things are unjust and grossly unequal - which they are - to be conservative is to want to maintain injustice and gross inequality - to deny the possibility of equal opportunity for everyone.

And that's why conservatism is morally obnoxious. And, for some curious reason, moral objectivists tend to be conservative. Strange. I wonder if there's a connection.

[RCSaunders]

And that's why conservatism is morally obnoxious.

Morally? Seems an odd way for someone who believes moral values are subjective to describe politics.

I have no use for either view, conservatism or liberalism, because I have no use for politics and regard all forms of government as evil, but I would hardly call them immoral just because I don't like them.

But it is no surprise that a philosophical discussion of the nature of values has been reduced to a discussion of politics. So much for the state of philosophy.

[Sculptor]

Good judgments need the faculty of reason, i.e. fine reasoning not crude reasoning.
But good judgments are in a way useless if they cannot be converted into actions.
Some people can give very good and sound advice but they cannot put those into practice themselves.
Thus the more critical point is the necessary neural mechanisms to effectively connect and convert sound judgments into virtuous actions.
This is why wisdom and philosophy [ability to apply good judgments into practice] i.e. 'walk the talk'.

So how do we build effective neural mechanisms to translate good judgment into its corresponding virtuous actions. Here Buddhism's 4NT and 8FP is most appropriate and most effective if we incorporate the neurosciences.

I think good value judgements require a lot more than neural pathways. Good information is vital, but more than that - a stable an emotional intelligence. Without an emotional input no judgement could ever consider human values.
A super computer might be able to make clear, and cogent decisions but utterly lack any good reason to, say, preserve life, or consider quality of life.

DNA/RNA wise ALL humans are embedded with an inherent faculty of morality, i.e. to be good which is not active in the majority of people.

morality yes, but "good", no.
Humans can go either way.
[/quote]

Example, DNA/RNA ALL humans are embedded with the inherent faculty of intellect/intelligence but it is not active in the majority of people. However the trend of intelligence from 10,000 years ago to the present, is increasing on average.
[/quote]
No. Not a scrap of evidence for that at all.
There is not much selective pressure for intelligence. There is far more for the ability to do violence against other humans.

Information is secondary, it is merely the input into the morality machinery and model. What is critical is the efficiency of the mechanisms within the moral model inherent within the human brain.
Emotional Intelligence is important but it is also secondary and thus is another input into the moral machinery and model.

One clue to the inherent moral neural machinery is the evidence that there are some people who are naturally born with good moral and act virtuous at all times without being taught about morality and emotional intelligence.

[Belinda]

And that's why conservatism is morally obnoxious.

Morally? Seems an odd way for someone who believes moral values are subjective to describe politics.

I have no use for either view, conservatism or liberalism, because I have no use for politics and regard all forms of government as evil, but I would hardly call them immoral just because I don't like them.

But it is no surprise that a philosophical discussion of the nature of values has been reduced to a discussion of politics. So much for the state of philosophy.

You see, RCS, a subject can and may have his own opinion. The great value of subjectivity is subjects can and do (in free countries) compare opinions and learn from each other. Peter Holmes states his opinion as part of a continuing conversation. It would be a sad state of affairs if we were all the same, or aimed to be all the same staring fixedly at some revered objective Truth.

[RCSaunders]

And that's why conservatism is morally obnoxious.

Morally? Seems an odd way for someone who believes moral values are subjective to describe politics.

I have no use for either view, conservatism or liberalism, because I have no use for politics and regard all forms of government as evil, but I would hardly call them immoral just because I don't like them.

But it is no surprise that a philosophical discussion of the nature of values has been reduced to a discussion of politics. So much for the state of philosophy.

You see, RCS, a subject can and may have his own opinion. The great value of subjectivity is subjects can and do (in free countries) compare opinions and learn from each other. Peter Holmes states his opinion as part of a continuing conversation. It would be a sad state of affairs if we were all the same, or aimed to be all the same staring fixedly at some revered objective Truth.

Who are you talking to? Where did you get the idea I was attempting to squelch anyone expressing whatever opinion they like, or is it just me, that is not supposed to express an opinion or and be involved in the conversation.

Perhaps you don't pay attention. In other places Peter denies that moral values are objective. I was only pointing out what seemed to be a contradiction of his stand in other places. I could be wrong, it was just my opinion.

As for having a, "revered objective Truth," don't you have one you call, "cosmic order," you say you have faith in?

I have no idea what you have taken umbrage to. Sorry to have ruffled your feathers.