In philosophy class, we were given a revision guide that listed philosophers for and against a list of viewpoints. Peter Singer was listed as "for" for the claim that "Consciousness is required to be considered a person", but "against" for the claim that "Self-consciousness is all that is required to be considered a person". I don't quite understand what is meant by this.
My initial understanding of Singer's view is pretty much summed up by this quote from here:
"Singer claims that in order to be 'persons' and to deserve moral consideration, beings must be self-aware, and capable of perceiving themselves as individuals through time."
To me, this sounds like what I would call self-consciousness, meaning Singer surely does believe self-consciousness is what is required to be considered a person. I brought this up to my teacher and he told me Singer believes consciousness is a spectrum, and anybody with consciousness, from animals to babies to functioning members of society have consciousness and are thus 'persons', but they are not all equally valuable as persons, rather those who can hold fewer preferences have less person-ness than those who can hold more. This kind of makes sense to me, but I'm not sure how this fits in with the original quote of persons must be "capable of perceiving themselves as individuals through time", which still just sounds like self-consciousness to me.
So my question is: are these two explanations of Singer's views not contradictory? Can somebody please define self-consciousness so that it might be more clear how Singer can claim "that beings must be self-aware, and capable of perceiving themselves as individuals through time", without that meaning they just need to be self-conscious?