…]
Stating that intelligence and emotion are more important than other differences is a qualitative assessment and is surely subjective. I might agree with you, but that is probably because I am also a human. If the oak tree were able to give its opinion it might have a very different perspective (as might an alien species). It might say that the capacity to know leads to all sorts of foolish and unpleasant human acts when what we think we know is not correct or we don’t know as much as we thought we did. Similarly with the capacity to love: our friend the oak tree could plausibly argue that it can lead to anxiety, depression and acts of unwarranted cruelty. I’m not convinced that you’ve demonstrated an objective superiority.
…]
These problems are related. Let me attempt to answer the question of the superiority of man to sub-human creatures. The problem is that this question could easily be the topic of a whole year of study, or more. (I probably confused matters by bringing in grace and the Beatific Vision; it was not my intention to make my answer depend on those). Anyway, here are the bare bones:
They key principle that is used to answer this question is the
principle of causality, which can be summarized as “every effect depends on a cause,” or formulated negatively as
sublata causa, tollitur effectus (if you remove the cause, you remove the effect).
Now, I should point out that, since I take my cue from Aristotle and St. Thomas, I understand the notion of “cause” in a slightly different way than most modern philosophers do (and as a consequence, most scientists that I have seen). I don’t think this nuance causes any harm to modern science, but it is helpful for metaphysical discussions like this one.
In summary the key thing to take away is that “causes” (or perhaps for clarity we can say “direct causes”) are always
present and the effect is
immediate. Let’s take an easy example of a direct cause: what causes the top of my desk to be immovable, three feet off the floor? Its legs, which provide a combined force that exactly counteracts the weight of the desktop (and whatever is sitting on top of it).
Now, is the carpenter (the one who made the desk) a direct cause of the position of my desktop? No. He is an example of what I call a
circumstantial cause. Why? Because he is not present anymore. Holding up the desktop, here and now, is very different from fashioning and setting up the desk five years ago.
The second idea is that an effect can never be greater than its
direct cause(s). It can be greater than its
circumstantial causes. I think I saw on the thread that someone used the example of lighting a fire. Sure, the mature fire is much hotter than the match or spark that was used to light it, but that is because a whole series of circumstantial causes have coincided to produce the effect that is present here and now. (
Right now, the fire is directly caused, not by the original spark, which is long gone, but by the hot fuel and the oxygen in the air.) In fact it is simple physics that there is much more potential energy in the chemical bonds of fuel than is actually given off as heat; you never get absolutely perfect combustion. At the very least, the fire does not produce more heat than is available in those bonds (which is why you have to add fuel after a while).
OK, so let’s look at our friends the oak trees and at ourselves, men. What kinds of things are oak trees capable of? Well, they can grow, make and obtain nutrients, and (if all goes well) develop into a hardy tree with hard wood and beautiful leaves (subjectively beautiful, to be sure
).
Now, the thing is, we can do all the same things, even though perhaps not as well in some aspects: we can grow and obtain nutrients (although admittedly we cannot
make nutrients, as the oak tree can). However, we can also move around on our own; we are capable of sensitive knowledge (we can perceive things, use our imagination, remember things); we have emotions and passions: all of these things, we share in common with at least the “higher” animals (forgive the expression
). So you see, there is already a whole range of activity that we (and all animals) can accomplish, but that oak trees are simply incapable of; whereas we can do essentially everything that oak trees can (albeit less perfectly in some aspects).
However, even more importantly than that, there is the whole aspect of intellectual activity. Man is capable of knowing things in such a way that is not dependent on his material reality. Consider our capacity for “abstraction.” Whereas animals can know this oak tree or that one, you and I can know
what an oak tree is, which is very different. It is a truly universally applicable knowledge. (The same can be said for our ability to love which, by the way, is not limited to being an emotion.)
And here is the key step: what is the
direct cause of a man’s activity? The man himself. If the man exhibits superior kind of
activity to an oak tree, and the effect cannot be greater than the direct cause, it follows that man is also a superior kind of
being than an oak tree.
And just the universal applicability of man’s capacity to know (his intellect) is enough to make it superior to any activity of an oak tree. If we investigate further, we learn that man’s intellectual activity, which does not depend directly on his matter, is actually
spiritual in character. It follows that man is a spiritual being, unlike oaks or even the “highest” (sub-human) animals.
I recognize that this is too much for one post. If I could make a recommendation, I would suggest the following book:
Man Incarnate Spirit by Ramon Lucas Lucas.
