I am one, sort of — at least in that I don't try to pull morality or free will out of a hat like some atheists do.

But I think we could think of the word "spirit" as representing the same thing as an individual "sentient perspective". So in that sense I could still theoretically be considered "spiritual".

I wrote a piece on morality a few months ago that deals with a lot of the questions you raise: https://medium.com/the-panopticon-publication/morality-is-personal-and-tribal-always-20c8c31f5d29

Basically, it seems to me like "morality", or any notion of "good" and "bad" are truly in the eyes of the beholder. We can condemn the murder of a loved one from our own perspective - but not necessarily from that of the universe at large. People shy away from saying that, but to me, it seems like such an obvious, benign, and honest observation — is it not?

On the other hand, communities often form rules and laws of their own, to facilitate the cooperation of its members, and we could think of that as "morality" too. It is just a word, after all. But it’s worth noting that that version of morality would still only be binding within the community - not universally so.

And the reason why animals often get the short end of the stick is simply because they don't have bargaining power over humans. Many vegans and animal rights activists get confused about this. Humans are generally empathetic, and that's why we have animal rights at all. But activists don't realize that empathy is in fact the ONLY reason we have animal rights - not because it is demanded by a universal moral code. That, and, perhaps, a vague (you might even say superstitious) deference to, or intuition of cosmic karma. But even karma is moreso about self-interest than about morality.