Hermes, virtue ethics is, in my opinion, far better than either deontology or consequentialism. It is most definitely not a form of relativism. On the contrary, it represents a naturalistic, that is, empirically based, approach to ethics, as explained in detail, for instance, by Philippa Foot in her Natural Goodness. Highly compatible with modern studies on prosocial behavior in non-human primates along the lines of Frans de Waal.I did not imply that adding moral value to facts is wrong. I reminded people that value judgments are distinct from facts, and that a given fact does not necessarily admit of only one kind of judgment. “I lost my job” is a fact. “It’s a catastrophe” is a value judgments which may or may not be true.The internal / external distinction is not complicated: my judgments, values, and decisions to act are “internal” or, more precisely, “up to me.” Everything else is external in the sense that it depends at least in part on factors I don’t control. Yes, this assumes a more or less functional human mind. If one is affected by dementia then of course one is not going to be able to make sound decisions. That’s just the way things are, not a limitation of Stoicism. If you go to the gym your trainer is going to assume you are in decent physical health. If it turns out that you have a serious heart condition you shouldn’t get on the treadmill, but the problem isn’t with the concept of gyms, or of aerobic exercise.The word “control” here is misleading, though admittedly often used by modern Stoics (you won’t find it in the ancient literature). The concept is more asking to “the buck stops with me (or not),” that is, it has to do with reasonable moral responsibility for one’s decisions and actions. If one is a psychopath one needs medical help, not Stoicism.I disagree with your assessment of the Hume-Damasio connection. I love both, but Hume was too dismissive of reason, and Damasio certainly isn’t. From an evolutionary perspective, reason and emotions co-evolved and constantly interact. Modern cognitive science clearly shows that emotions have cognitive components, which is the basis of both Stoic psychology and CBT.Your last paragraph is based on a misconception about Stoicism: it does NOT suggest that rationality ought to control emotions. That’s Plato. It suggests exactly what you propose: a constant feedback loop between cognition and emotions.But no, I don’t think there is anything “intrinsically bad.” Bad is a value judgment and therefore a human creation, it’s not out there in the world. Take cancer: it may be bad for you and me, but I’d love some really bad actors in international politics to get it immediately and get the hell out of the way. That’s what the Stoics meant when they said that even health may be “dispreferred.” Nobody wants a healthy Hitler, even though he may want to be healthy. (See? Same facts, different opinions.)
