Are animals considered a thing?

Animal, vegetable or mineral

Not a person, not a place, so they must be a thing. A living, fleshy object.

I do not.

Neither does German law.
According to §1 TierSchG, humans have responsibility towards animals as fellow creatures, and based on that, §90 BGB states that animals are not things.

Just as humans are living things so are animals. Hardly “just a thing” imo.

Not BY PETA or loli.

Everything you can see or touch or feel is a thing.

@kritiper “Not a person, not a place, so they must be a thing.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Animals are animals. Humans are animals. Both humans and animals (and every other physical thing) are things.

People usually refers to humans, but to me (and many others) it is clear that animals think, feel, and have conscious experiences and person-alities, and relating to animals “as people” seems far more enlightened, wise, and humans to me than relating to them “as things”.

The fact that the lady got arrested and charged with a felony for animal cruelty tells us animals rise above “things.”

Not a thing but a living breathing being entitled to live freely and without cruelty.

” A mark of good character is how they treat those that they think inferior”.

I kill cockroaches though. Just sayin’

I feel like there should be a link or some context for this question to make more sense. Who is saying, “person, place or thing”?

What is a noun.

^^ Aha – got it now. The standard definition of a noun. So it should really be, “A noun is an animal,place or thing” since humans are a sub-species of animals.

Well aliens are, The Thing from Outer Space, so animals must be too.
Yeah, I just decided they are.

@gorillapaws ??? I don’t follow…
We were only given three choices. Animals are not people. Animals are not places. What else is there???

Can you imagine proposing that in 50s, @janbb?! There are people today that bristle when it’s pointed out that they are animals.

“Things” @kritiper. Animals can be things, but so can people.

@gorillapaws and @Dutchess_III have the fundamental answer to this question, it seems to me:

The premise in the question details: “Person, place, or thing.” is a misplaced phrase from the definition of a noun. It’s not supposed to be a Platonic taxonomy of mutually exclusive categories for all things, such that it makes sense to ask which one of the three each other thing is.

So a proper literal answer to “Animal – Person, place, or thing?” might be:

“No, animals are animals.”

or more verbosely:

”(Those aren’t the only categories that might apply, and) animals aren’t places, and in one sense they might be considered things, but that doesn’t mean animals are only things any more than humans also being things does. And, some wise people relate to animals as people, but not always.”

@Dutchess_III I don’t understand what ”...but so can people.” have to do with my answer. The question, after all, was about “animals.”

I was just pointing out that any physical thing can be considered a “thing.”

So a little more context.

Someone asked to play a game where you thought up words. The criteria being “person, place or thing”. Another person said the name of a type of animal. And several people objected.

Yet if you look up the definition of “thing”, it gets confusing.

One definition of thing reads:
an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being.
“I’m not a thing, not a work of art to be cherished”

In which case, animals would not be considered a thing.

But then another definition of thing reads:
a living creature or plant.
“the sea is the primal source of all living things on earth”

In which case, animals would be considered a thing.

And also…if “person, place or thing” is another way of saying “noun”, then an animal is a thing because an animal is a noun. Right?

But calling an animal a thing just feels wrong. But is it technically right?

[scratches head]

@raum Well, that where I was going with my first answer. When we played 20 Questions, the categories were “animal, vegetable or mineral” which are clearer and better distinctions. A person would be under animal although sometimes we did add the category “Famous Person” which made it easier to guess.

And in your examples, you have to add “living” to thing to describe an animal. Thing is a pretty ambiguous term.

@raum It appears to be true that some people will analyze just about anything to death! Sometimes, simplicity is the key.

@raum It sounds like a poorly-defined game.