Full Answer Section

Wilderson argues that the dehumanization of Black people is not based on any objective difference between Black people and white people. Rather, it is based on the perception of Black people as being less than human. This perception has been cultivated by centuries of racist propaganda and violence.

Wilderson writes that “the mark of humanness” is not something that we are born with. It is something that is bestowed upon us by others. Those who are perceived as being human are granted certain rights and privileges, while those who are not perceived as being human are denied these rights and privileges.

Orleans: Pets as Persons

In “The Animal in Our Midst,” Orleans explores the relationship between humans and pets. She argues that when we think of an animal as a pet, rather than as food, we are attributing personality to the animal and making them a person.

Orleans writes that “pets are members of our families, our companions, and our friends.” We form emotional bonds with our pets and we care about their well-being. This is because we see our pets as persons, rather than as objects.

Orleans argues that the attribution of personality to animals is not simply a matter of sentimentality. It is a way of recognizing the moral status of animals. When we see an animal as a person, we are acknowledging that the animal has rights and that it deserves to be treated with respect.

Similarities and Differences

Wilderson and Orleans both write about the importance of perception in determining the status of a person or animal. However, their focus is different. Wilderson is concerned with the dehumanization of Black people, while Orleans is concerned with the attribution of personality to pets.

Despite their different focus, Wilderson and Orleans both make important contributions to our understanding of the relationship between humans and animals. They show us how our perceptions of animals can influence their status in society and how these perceptions can have real-world consequences.

Pets as Persons

The attribution of personality to pets is a complex phenomenon. On the one hand, it is clear that pets are not persons in the same way that humans are. Pets do not have the same cognitive abilities as humans, and they do not have the same moral rights.

On the other hand, it is also clear that pets can have a profound impact on our lives. We form emotional bonds with our pets, and we care about their well-being. In many cases, we see our pets as members of our families.

So, are pets persons? The answer is not simple. It depends on how we define “person.” If we define “person” as a being with certain cognitive abilities and moral rights, then pets are not persons. However, if we define “person” as a being with whom we can form emotional bonds and who has an impact on our lives, then pets can be seen as persons.

Ultimately, the question of whether or not pets are persons is a matter of personal belief. There is no right or wrong answer.

Conclusion

Wilderson and Orleans both write about the importance of perception in determining the status of a person or animal. Wilderson shows us how the dehumanization of Black people can lead to their denial of rights and privileges. Orleans shows us how the attribution of personality to pets can lead to their recognition as moral beings.

Both essays raise important questions about the relationship between humans and animals. They challenge us to think about the ways in which our perceptions of animals can influence their status in society.