I have a personal issue

what the hell are you even trying to say?

>"I despise when a man loves kids in general thinking it is good and spend more money on his kid than charity."

You have no point, you just like one thing and not another and have no basis for it, let alone to be made at others who differ from you.

Read Last and First Men.

I know you think it is most likely books and stuff that got you into this mess but I would REALLY recommend The Happiness Hypothesis by Haidt.

He is a leading researcher in morality, so although the book might give you the impression that it's a self help "lead a better life" thing, actually he takes you on a tour of human nature and morality and tackles some of the big questions about how different moral codes could ever get along.

I think what you're talking about is the difference between character morality and moral reasoning. The West became obsessed with the latter, which is about morality as a logical system for solving problems. Utilitarianism is a good example of this kind of approach.

Character morality, which is exemplified by the Greeks and also the early American leaders, is much more about imagining the kind of person you would want to be and training yourself to be that person, letting that character make moral decisions based on intuition. It is more important to be a good person (in your control) than take account of as many of the billion separate factors that influence every moral dilemma (most of which are not in your control).

But the argument for character morality I like the most is that it is applicable in every situation of your life, rather than a handful of abstract moral problems that hardly ever enter into daily lived experience.

The difference between your statement and OP is that children are also human and dogs are not. If you do not understand that humans have more inherent value than dogs then you are both autistic and part of the problem.

OP here
I wanted to underline that I already know my sentiment is not right.

Also it is not about my personal morality, or others' morality.
I simply dislike the thought of majorities of people reasoning in certain ways. It's plain autism.

By the way, I am more a cinema kind of guy, that is why I was asking about books, I didn't read at all in my life, I didn't think of morality. Actually I don't think at all, I don't consider important having a point of view on something, you just need the knowledge of what the point of views are and the ability to construct them and follow intuitively what you want.

I read few books, Promessi Sposi, Divina Commedia, Genji Monogatari

>OP here
>I wanted to underline that I already know my sentiment is not right.
>Also it is not about my personal morality, or others' morality.
>I simply dislike the thought of majorities of people reasoning in certain ways. It's plain autism.
Man, this is completely different to your OP. You're trying to wriggle out of the answer.

Your main problem is you don't like other people and their values? Read some Sartre.

>I have a personal issue
You got that right. Morality is subjective. You can complain about other people's morals, but it doesn't matter at all.

> I despise when a man love dogs in general thinking it is good and spend more money on his dog than charity.
I suggest you need to appreciate dogs more. They are ingenuous creatures, and usually more loyal, honest, noble and even moral than humans.

Understand that some animals deserve salvation more than people, and your problem will vanish.

>implying charity does fuck all for some disease riddled faggots in Africa
I'd rather spend that money on dog chow

top kiwi che frocio

Dogs have had an important symbiotic relationship with humans for thousands of years, we've evolved as species to work with and understand eachother. I understand what your saying, but dogs do have an inherent, evolutionary driven, importance in our minds thay exists outside of ideology. If you don't like dogs there is probably something off with you rather than v/v.

>I don't care about philosophers, they simply learn how to argue in a specific sense something that any reasonable human being can understand intuitively.
Opinion discarded, unique snowflake.

>If you do not understand that humans have more inherent value
Potential, not "inherent". A disabled man fully dependent on others is a strain to society and should not be born in the first place, while a herding dog has a lot to offer.

So Stephan Hawking has no value? Our minds are more important than any physical labor.

No, they certainly have value. However, they are not children. They will never be of our flesh and blood. They are companions, sure, but to a much lesser degree than any human companion. I live on a farm with working dogs. We treat all minor afflictions they may encounter in their natural life. Once a terminal condition presents itself we euthanize the dog as we can't afford to have a geriatric senior dog that has 3 different prescriptions. Our dogs never receive surgery, or other invasive operations. I've loved all my dogs and I was sad when they had to go. I held my dog in my arms at home when the vet administered the lethal dose and cried, but I would never string an unhealthy dog along to watch it deteriorate on my living room floor day after day.

Cut the sophistry, user. Hawking contributed a whole lot to fields like astrophysics. I meant literal vegetables with no hope for independent existence.

Like comatose patients? People pull the plug on them. I have no problem with this. I'm not sure what your argument is about. Is there some situation where I am forced to choose between a living healthy dog and a comatose human? Set up your hypothetical better. I choose the dog btw. How could I allow that which is nothing more than flesh take president over a sentient being?

I was only answering a post about the supposed "inherent" value of humans (as opposed to dogs), so your accusations should be directed at