I don't agree with that either. All beings with mind, which includes all biological forms of life, have some level of self-awareness. Any creature that reacts defensively or offensively demonstrates a level of self-awareness. If an animal didn't see itself as distinct from "other" there wouldn't exist a cause to perceive fear or aggression.
People in comas have no apparent consciousness, no apparent self-awareness and no apparent intelligence. There are a number of conditions that would render a person apparently lacking in all of those attributes. Simply being knocked unconscious would do it.
Quite true, TigersEye.
I am aware of three kinds of entities which are clearly persons: (1) divine (2) angelic and (3) human entities. These are the ones I know of now.
But I have often wondered (and discussed with my boys) how one would classify still other entities as "personal" or "non-personal" in the moral sense.
This is a problem which presents itself intriguingly in the StarTrek world. Humans, Klingons, Romulans, Vulcans, Andorians, etc. are clearly persons. Data the Android, possibly not (but in some episodes he does seem to be able to self-program, which raises other questions.)
If you encountered a life form that oscillated between a self-aware stage and one which was not apparently self-aware-- maybe it had a seemingly passive pupate form alternating with a thoughtful, even affectionate, larval FReeper form :o) --- would it be OK without their consent to marinate them in Italian dressing, saute them and eat them all when they were in their pupa stage?
I would judge not.
I would judge that any being which has a nature that could at some stage be personal, has to be regarded as possessing the dignity of a person.
Even if that individual is at various points unreasonable, insensate, poorly developed, incoherent, or even totally unconscious. You can see how that applies to us, too.