How do you value each one of these? Should an animal be valued higher than than a constructed machine that is otherwise identical? What about humans and machines?
Normally, in order to answer these questions we would look at the empirical evidence, and the evidence in favour that inanimate objects have self-awareness is completely non-existent.
On the other hand, the evidence that animals have self-awareness is overwhelmingly strong.
Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that inanimate objects aren't self-aware but that people and animals are. (And of course this also means that is NOT reasonable to conclude otherwise.)
This is essentially a part of the Chinese Room Argument: how can you draw a distinction between two things, when you cannot observe it?
Unfortunately, his argument applies to a human being as well, so...
It would be interesting to do a study of a group like judges or politicians and compare them to a hypothetical Chinese Room. It seems likely that they would often need to speak briefly on subjects outside their actual understanding, but they clearly have a deep understanding of the language.