Speculative Spectrum

Earlier this week in class, we discussed the "personhood" of animals. We discussed how, according to some philosophers, a person is defined as the conscious subject of a life. We also talked about how not all animals would fit under the category of a person, and as such they should not receive the same consideration.

I find it interesting that, according to this understanding of personhood, we can attribute the qualities and due consideration of a person to some animals and not to others. To the extent that we can accurately determine and measure the sentience and cognition of an animal, it seems as though there would be a spectrum of creatures endowed with characteristics both necessary and sufficient for designation as a person. While in many cases it may be easy enough to distinguish between person and non-person type animals, such as a chimpanzee and an ant, other cases might arise in which the distinction is more difficult. Is a chicken a person? What about a mouse, or a snake? Many pescatarians claim that fish should not be given the same consideration as other animals they consider persons, but is that distinction fair? And does it depend on the species of fish? When we begin to distinguish animals as persons and non-persons, where the line is drawn becomes an important issue, and thus far it seems as though the analytic consideration of these species is arbitrary and speculative at best.