An Animal 's Sense Of Spirituality

I am going to argue in support of Peter Singer’s claims against speciesism. It is right to claim that human suffering and animal suffering should be given equal considerations. Both humans and nonhuman species suffer both physically and emotionally and both deserve equal considerations on the basis of morality.

Jeremy Rifkin in the article " A Change of Heart about Animals" argues on the fact that as incredible as it sounds, many of our fellow creatures as like us in so many ways. For example, in a movie named Paulie a young girl that suffers autism gets attached to a parrot. The girl struggles to talk but she just can't. Time passes by and then the girl starts talking because the parrot helped her. An incident happened so the little girl's parents decide to let the parrot go. The parrot ends up in an animal testing lab but somehow he managed to escape. The parrot begins to miss his owner because he formed a bond with a human being. Obviously, this proves Rifkin is right when he states that animals experience feelings like human beings.

When it comes to animals, everyone seems to have an opinion. Some love them, some hate them. Some believe that animals feel and experience authentic emotions, while others believe that they do not have the capability to do so. A lack of belief in the existence of emotions in animals is often used to justify wrongful treatment. Are some animals more aware of feelings than others? These questions and more demand answers. Animals definitely have emotions, and because of this we must rethink many of our modern practices.

As the rain of hardship and pain floods the souls of one family, the silent but all-seeing pet dog learns to stand by his family and ultimately learn, throughout his life, the art of racing in the rain. Within Stein’s The Art of Racing in the Rain, the story is told from the perspective of the common household dog, Enzo. This unparalleled perspective displays the trust that many people place upon a dog’s shoulders, but Enzo’s point of view also shows how beautifully bonded Denny, Eve, Zoe and Enzo are through the trials of life and death. While Enzo cannot speak, he thoughtfully forms ideas about what he would say if he were a human; nevertheless, Enzo’s inability to speak makes him wise beyond his dog years, for as humans, we tend to speak what is on our mind before considering the impact that it will leave upon

In Chapter two of Moral, Believing Animals Christian Smith argues that human beings are moral animals because they are strong self-evaluators who inhabit morally based orders. In the next chapter, smith adds that humans are moral animals because they also believe. This ability to believe and act morally allows humans to stray away from our instinctive minds. In other words, it is apart of what makes us human. Smith finds that this way of viewing humans provides a better account of human religiousness. Religion is the manifestation of our capacity to be self-conscious. Smith uses Narrative morality writing to help explain his views on religion and human beings, which allow us to recognize our true moral capacity.

Contrary to what we might think, animals share similar characteristics with us in terms of their physical and psychological states. Jeremy Rifkin, author of twenty books on the impact of scientific and technological changes on the society and the environment, writes in his op-ed piece “A Change of Heart about Animals,” research which supports animals have behavioral, mental, and emotional states. Koko, a gorilla, was taught how to use sign language and has mastered more than 1,000 signs and can understand several thousand English words. To express their sense of individuality, orangutans use mirrors to explore parts of their bodies they can 't otherwise see. A common misconception is animals can 't feel anything, meaning they don’t understand suffering. However, elephants appear to experience grief by mourning for the dead and standing next to their dead kin for days (Rifkin). Also according to Victoria Braithwaite, a Professor of Fisheries and Biology interested in animal cognition, studies in her article "Hooked on a Myth" suggests nociceptors, specialized nerve endings that alert creatures to feel pain, are found in the mouths of fish. This study proves animals have the ability to experience pain. Rifkin’s

Since we cannot communicate in an effective way to these animals, some people find it hard to believe that animals really do experience subjectivity. However, it seems that every person can understand that animals such as dogs, cats, and primates seek pleasure and avoid pain. These two ideas are contradictions of each other because if an animal seeks to enhance its subjective experience, it must follow that they do have a similar subjective experience as humans. Not surprisingly, just like the mentally retarded children that were previously mentioned, even if these animals cannot solve complex math problems, read or write, or compose music that these animals are still subjects of life. It follows that if these animals are subjects of life that they should also fall into the domain of equality of

The article “A Change of Heart About Animals” written by Jeremy Rifkin informs readers that animals feel emotions very much similar to humans and should be given more rights. I agree with Rifkin’s statement, but to a certain extent.

In an article based on an interview published in Time Magazine, “A Change of Heart About Animals”. Jeremy Rifkin expresses his views about the similarity behavior and emotional state between us humans and animals, with the purpose to change the way of how we see and feel about them. “We’re so skewed toward efficiency that we’ve lost our sense of humanity. What we need to do is to bring back a sense of the sacred”, Rifkin, argues. He supports his arguments with the findings of many researchers around the globe. Researchers that come from very prestigious institutions using different species of animals, we’re talking about crows, elephants, geese, etc. Not your ordinary lab rats and monkeys (which they don’t have anything

1. Comment on the passage on page 54 that begins "Most of the craziness in this world-violence, addictions and frenetic activity comes from running away from pain." Disguising a person 's name (if you use one) and applying the value of confidentiality, discuss some of your observations at your field placement of people (or perhaps even staff or the organization as a whole) in "pain". Using a "person in environment" perspective and a bio-psycho-social-spiritual lens, discuss your findings. (Hint: use this question to get ready to informally present a case or pertinent clinical example during small group in the next few weeks.)

One of the most controversial topics in modern philosophy revolves around the idea of non-human animals being considered human people. Controversy over what makes up an actual person has been long debated. However, society deems it as a set of characteristics. The average person normally does not realize how complicated a question this is, and in fact many scientists, philosophers, and individuals will side differently on this specific topic. I personally do not believe that animals are capable of being human people, but throughout this argumentative paper I will address critical views presented from multiple philosophers on why this seems to be the case.

Spirituality and religion hold different values and truths depending on your personal beliefs. Being religious is a belief or practice that contains certain values one should follow. When looking deeper into religion you can find spirituality which is the part of religion that effects our spirit and soul, it is not tangible. “The Sacred within” is spirituality and pertains to God dwelling inside of our heart and soul. When looking at “the sacred within” there are certain senses that we can tap into so, we may obtain that sort of spirituality. Through solitude, silence, imagination, and nature, we can have a better sense of spirituality.

In more recent times the rising prevalence around animal ethics, in the world itself as well as in the realm of philosophy, a multitude of people are finding connection between the somewhat hidden prejudice of speciesism and the indisputable prejudices of sexism and racism. To fully grasp this association, one must first understand the seriously

animal behaviour when it supports his arguments. However, it is in fact difficult to judge the causes for animal distress based on their reaction (i.e. writhing, facial contortions, moaning, and yelping) as these reactions may not be based on a cognitive awareness but on a self‐preservation instinct. Singer and we can only hypothesize what an animal might be feeling, not make categorical arguments as Singer has done.

Edward O. Wilson proposed the possibility that the deep connections humans have with other life forms and nature as a whole are rooted in our biology (Wilson 1). This hypothesis being biophilia, or the love of life or living systems. Unlike phobias, which are the uneasiness’s, fears, anxieties that people have of a multitude of things, philias are the interests and positive emotions towards organisms, species, habitats, processes, and objects in their natural environments. In this hypothesis, human’s preferences towards things in nature aren’t cultivated through experiences and perceptions, but are of biological evolution. Where else would our desire to save domesticated and/or wild animals come from? Where would our desire to house plants in our own homes come from? Where would our fascinations with travel and sight-seeing come from?