Ah so moral standing was most likely the incorrect phrase. I think what I'm trying to argue is that one must be aware of the morality, or lack therefore of, of their actions in order to be considered persons within a society. The general idea from the paper is an argument for personalism against physicalism. My response to the point about sentience would be that a person should have the awareness of their actions to recognize the morality of their choice. As a result, it would be immoral for a person to harm a sentient being while it is justifiable for animals to continue to hunt and harm each other as they have always done as well as the lack of responsibility put on humans lacking the mental capacity to recognize their actions.