Humes makes the reader understand that an experienced judge can foresee how a case will turn out by just looking at the size of a
“...growls Kat,” (Remarque 45) Although this isn’t referring directly to animal instinct these references do portray how the “animal” within them are being shown during the time they spend at war. Due to the fact that the animal instinct is most prominent through acts of war. In these acts, the soldiers don’t realize what they did because it was the instinct that kicked in, in their time of need. “By the animal instinct that is awakened in us we are led and protected. It is not conscious; it is far quicker, much more sure less fallible, than consciousness,”(Remarque 56).
“Bah! They’ve no understanding.” ( Connell 3) In the scene, Rainsford states that animals have no feelings; Connell used that as foreshadowing to portray the theme of considering how others feel.
"’I wanted the ideal animal to hunt,’ explained the general. ‘So I said, ‘What are the attributes of an ideal quarry? '’ And the answer was, of course, ‘It must have courage, cunning, and, above all, it must be able to reason. ' ‘But no animal can reason,’ objected Rainsford. ‘My dear fellow,’ said the general, ‘there is one that can’"
He continues to look at the “rights” of moral agents and that moral agents can only be if they themselves can make moral decisions. Animals cannot make moral
Society usually doesn’t assume that humans have animal instincts and tendencies. The blatant use of the phrases of “catlike reflexes” and “as strong as a bull” are used as compared to animals. In Of Mice and Men humans are interpreted as other animals based on actions and thoughts. This also could be another way to symbolize the attribute someone might have. Having these actions, emotions, and characteristics mimicked by these animals creates how the actions of primitive being can be related to human life as sometimes these different species aren’t much different at all.
“I wanted the ideal animal to hunt,’ explained the general. ‘So I said: ‘What are the attributes of an ideal quarry?’ And the answer was, of course: ‘It must have courage, cunning, and, above all, it must be able to reason.’ ‘But no animal can reason,’ objected Rainsford. ‘My dear fellow,’ said the general, ‘there is one that can.’
This means that humans still share the same instincts with animals. Another example is when Rainsford first enters the hunt with Zaroff. “...he had plunged along, spurred on by the sharp rowels of something very like panic” (13). Rainsford is panicking because he doesn’t know what to do, and he is stuck in an unfamiliar situation, which is typical animal behavior. A final example of a human’s animalistic instincts showing is when Rainsford is contemplating what to do after escaping Zaroff’s hounds.
In How Smart are Animals? The author Dorothy Hinshaw Patent, is entertaining us when she puts in the anecdote to tell us that animals aren't smart they are just trained good as well as being descended from wolves, and that is how Villa helps Andrea she doesn't understand the concept of danger. Patent is informing us that animals do understand us and they are intelligent. She starts off she story by giving us a little entertaining section like a hook about 2 paragraphs long to get us to learn about how smart animals really are. This story was made as a supported informational evidence piece because it was full of evidence supporting the central claim of, animals aren't just ¨animals¨ they do understand and they do have feelings. Patent includes
Language- The language that is used in these books is very simple and doesn't have meany big words. They tell how small the Littles are and how there tails look but there isn't much about what they really look like, there are pictures the show the caricatures to help show what they look like. The books do do a good job at describing where they live and with the help of the illustrations you can get a good visual for the book. When I read the book I could put defiant voices with the different characters but the way they spoke was primarily the same.
In the movie 12 Angry Men it showed many examples of Hume’s ideas such as skepticism, pluralism, relativism, and reasonable doubt. First let me explain what skepticism is, skepticism doubts the validation of knowledge or particular subject. Pluralism is the position that there are many different kinds of belief—but not all just as good as any other. Relativism is when the position that each belief is just as good as any other, since all beliefs are viewpoint dependent. Reasonable doubt is lack of proof that prevents a judge or jury to convict a defendant for the charged crime.
My views are similar to those of Hume based on the fact that he believed that animals and humans are alike, in that we both learn from experience, utilize instincts, realize one’s own limits, and that possible consequences may follow certain actions (Hume 1748 AD). Hume also expressed the idea that even though animals are similar to humans, animals’ minds are more limited; for example, they possess an inability to reason beyond applying input to past experience (Hume 1748 AD). I agree with Hume when he expresses that animals cannot observe input differently once they form a habit and they do not have the advanced ability to reason like he says humans do (Hume 1748 AD). Furthermore, I resonate with his statement that humans and animals have
He notes that the inferior animals seem to revel in a more contented fortune than people (Berger, 2004). This argument is agreeable in that animals live a better life than human beings. The truth that animals have no recollections from their previous activities and do not reiterate them means that they, of course, live a better life than men. For example, when considering a housefly that has a lifetime of about seven days according to most biological tests, the animal lives a more comfortable life as compared to human beings. This true because human beings have a longer life span and would suffer more by memorizing previous recollections that inflicted agony and suffering (Jacquette, 2005).
Hume on the other hand can only confirm what has already happened, being that is the most truthful and logical
If a horse were to bite another horse and that other horse started to hurt him, he would realize that it is not wise to try and engage like that with him. A Review of Learning Behavior in Horses and its Application in Horse Training, supports training by reinforcement with the replication of herd behavior, “When the trainer applies an aversive stimulus after the horse makes an incorrect response, the trainer is utilizing punishment. Both punishment and negative reinforcement use aversive stimuli… Punishment differs from reinforcement (both positive and negative) in that it works to suppress or eliminate a response, whereas reinforcements increase the probability that the response will occur again with the presentation of a specific stimulus” (McCall, 1990, p.78). These techniques are not abusive because they replicate the methods of establishment of the pecking order and how horses socialize.
