The last couple of days I’ve put up a couple of posts regarding animals displaying surprising amounts of intelligence–dolphins making simple tools, monkeys using money.
In view of the fact that man is distinguished from the animals by having a rational soul (in contrast to their sensitive souls), this raises a question: Just how much reason do you need to have a rational soul?
There is no Church teaching on this, but here are a few thoughts on the subject:
1) It is not just any kind of intelligence that results in a rational soul. Certain kinds of intelligence a creature may have in spades without it amounting to the gift of reason. For example: survival skills. The ability to, in its own native habitat, do such things as hunt, forage for food, reproduce, or–in the case of some species (like spiders, bees, ants, termites, wasps, and beavers) build shelter or similar structures does not count as reason. Reason involves a more abstract reasoning facility than these kinds of skills.
2) Mere ability to tool use tools also does not count as reason. The monkeys who were taught to use money as a tool to get what they want, or a chimp who’s been taught to communicate using a symbolic keyboard, this does not indicate reason.
3) Neither does the ability to make simple tools, such as primates who strip leaves off twigs to get a good termite-digging twig or the dolphins who rip sponges off the sea floor to get nose guards.
4) If the capacity to make simple tools, or to use more sophisticated ones, is not sufficient for the kind of reason that coincides with the presence of a rational soul, what kind of reason does? I would suggest that a useful way of trying to figure it out is by looking at the development of reason in our own species.
5) When humans are conceived–at the one cell, zygote stage–they have no more actual intelligence than the zygotes of other species. An adult dog has more actual intelligence than a zygote human. What human zygotes do have is rational souls that, as their neurology develops, will increasingly manifest their potential until the amount of actual intelligence a human possesses zooms past that of adult dogs and every other species on the planet.
6) At some point in this development, a typical human reaches what we call the "age of reason" or the "age of accountability" or similar terms. I propose that this age is the most promising stage of human development to look to when trying to settle our question. If we judge that children of a certain age have the gift of reason–reason sufficient to be gravely morally accountable for their actions–then this is plausibly the kind of reason that a rational soul is meant to manifest.
7) Kids below this age are not judged to be gravely accountable for their actions. They are incapable of committing mortal sin because they lack the reason to do so. They have rational souls below this age, of course, but their neurology has not yet developed to the point that they have the full and actual gift of reason, only a partial or potential exercise of reason.
8) My conjecture is that this is the dividing line to which we should look in determining whether a non-human creature has reason. If this is the kind of reason we focus on in human development, the same benchmark should be used (mutatis mutandis) for other creatures.
9) The other creatures on Earth, of course, all fall below this level of reason–or at least so it seems. But the test might be applied to new creatures we discover offworld someday–if there is any life out there. If we find them to have intelligence–and specifically the capacity for moral reasoning–equivalent to a human at or past the age of reason then we should presume that they have rational souls, as we do.
10) I also conjecture one other thing as a sign of reason: If they possess the concepts of God or the afterlife without being taught them by another species then they also should be presumed to possess rational souls. I acknowledge that we might one day teach a chimp to use the sign for "God" correctly in sentences, but being taught a symbol or even a concept by a more intelligent species is not what I would regard as indicative of the presence of a rational soul.
11) The Church does not have a formal teaching on when the age of reason is, but it is commonly assumed to be about age seven years–earlier in some children, later in others. Parents who have seen multiple children pass through this age range also note that they perceive a change taking place in the sophistication of moral reasoning of their children at about this time.
12) This has an application even to creatures here on Earth: If the above conjecture is correct, a non-human species–even here on Earth–could have the intelligence (and specifically the moral reasoning capacity) of anything up to that of a six or seven year old child without it being indicative that the creature has a rational soul.
13) The conjecture would thus suggest that we should still regard terrestrial animals as animals–not possessors of rational souls and not the subjects of moral rights–even if they display impressive levels of abstract intelligence or proto-moral reasoning, as long as this level falls below the level that a human at the age of reason would have.
14) This, however, is only conjecture. The sources of revelation, while they are clear on the fact that terrestrial animals are included within mankind’s stewardship and fit for his use, are not explicit on every consideration that could be raised. The ancient Hebrews did not know about the existence of certain species of highly-intelligent animals (e.g., gorillas), nor did they know very much about the intelligence of others (e.g., whales, dolphins). In fact, the Hebrews weren’t big on doing intelligence tests even on the animals they were familiar with.
15) It is therefore possible that further research and reflection on certain highly intelligent animal species could–at least hypothetically–result in development of doctrine regarding what does and does not possess a rational soul, and when precisely the age of reason is in humans. I don’t say that because I think it likely that any of these species have rational souls. I just mention it in recognition of the fact that the sources of revelation are limited in what they tell us and that the above is what it is: conjecture.
“It is the simple truth that man does differ from the brutes in kind and not in degree; and the proof of it is here; that it sounds like a truism to say that the most primitive man drew a picture of a monkey and that it sounds like a joke to say that the most intelligent monkey drew a picture of a man. Something of division and disproportion has appeared; and it is unique. Art is the signature of man.
–GK Chesterton, “The Everlasting Man”
I’ve found this topic fascinating since we talked about it in one of my theology classes. The instructor defined a rational soul with two criteria: reflection and abstraction. Where abstraction refers to understanding and applying an abstract idea of an object, e.g. desk. Desks take many different shapes, sizes, and colors, but we all know what one is when we see it: a flat surface for working while seated. I don’t quite remember how to define reflection, but primarily it has to do with taking ideas and thinking about them.
The summer after I learned this, I vaguely remember arguing with some guy (possibly a Mormon) about this topic when he claimed that animals have souls. People are impressed when you can give a precise definition of a soul. In retrospect I was wrong to a certain degree because animals do have souls, just not rational human ones like us.
I always wonder if we will have to evangelize new life from other planets should we ever know them. With my interest in aerospace I always wonder what religious order will arise to purchase space vehicles to use in their ministry.
With regard to (15), I tend to think that there could be a distinction between a creature with a rational soul and one with a rational human soul like ourselves.
The Church and society may be faced this issue sooner than later. With cloning and DNA splicing, the idea of chimeras is now closer to science than science fiction. Some nut is bound to try to infuse human DNA into monkeys, apes or other animals. Who knows how much intelligence these creatures will have? Who knows if God will decide to give them a rational soul? Kinda scary.
I’ve thought about this before but never heard anyone actually talk about it. An intriguing post. Regarding space aliens, though, the obligation to preach the Gospel would not extend to them. They might have their own Savior, or they might be morally perfect. Or, more likely I think, there are no other creautures in the universe with rational souls, though perhaps there are more animals, or even some other type of life of which we are totally ignorant. This all kind of reminds me of the book “The Sparrow”.
Adam,
I think we would have to preach the Gospel to aliens. Remember Jesus said preach the Gospel to “every creature“, not just every person.
Although, he did say go to the ends of the earth and do so, not to the end of mars.
Cool post!
I dabbled in philosophy for a bit and was exposed to some baiscs in an area called philosophy of mind. This is one of the only truly vital and cutting edge areas in the discipline right now.
Descartes is most well known for the association of the soul with the conscious mind, and it makes sense. Since humans exhibit the greatest capacity for reflexice self-consciousness, it is natural to assume this is what makes us human.
For precisely the reasons Jimmy gives (and many that have been explored by people like Dan Dennett and others) I think there needs to be more theological word done which de-emphasizes this association.
The mind is more and more coming to be seen as an epiphenomon which arises out of the physical workings of the brain. It is, in short, a byproduct of material (physical) happenings. The soul, by contrast, is a metaphyiscal (spiritual) reality.
I think the sooner we can come up with a theology of the mind which de-couples it from the ability to reason, the better.
I think art is one of those bright-line differences between us and the animals. Some animals use crude tools, some have a crude language, but none make even crude drawings (and please, no appeals to painting elephants or cats. If I give a rat a paintbrush and let it run around on a canvas for a while, that does not make it an artist).
I don’t think it is art itself that makes us different, but the artistic or creative impulse is evidence of something present in us that is absent in animals.
The human capacity to produce art is a good place to start thinking about the divide between human and animal. But take a step further back and think about the nature of any work of art, a representation of reality that is meaningful as it participates in a network of signs. Walker Percy wrote quite a bit about man’s nature as an arbiter of signs, so not just art but any language itself more than anything marks man’s distinctiveness.
Tim, you note that animals have been known to use “crude language.” I assume you mean examples like Koko the gorilla, Washoe the chimp who have been taught American Sign Language. When you look at their actual expressive ability, I think it is limited to a few hundred words at most and short, sentences like “want eat” etc. It took the scientists working with them years of painstaking effort to reach this minimal communication. A child just learning to speak, on the other hand, learns words at an astonishing rate and can formulate abstract ideas fairly early. When comparing the two it becomes clear that the “language” of Koko and her ilk is but a step above Skinner’s pigeons hitting a button to get a pellet.
In short, maybe there is something about the human capacity for language and sign use in general that marks the great divide. I’m not saying this is necessarily the answer, but I think it is fertile ground to start from. It even jibes with the Creation story a bit, think about God charging Adam with naming all the creatures of the earth.
Interesting discussion on the matter.
I think that the biggest divider between man and beast is that man is self-aware, and that he can exercise his will. No matter what mental faculties an animal has, it is always running on instinct; without a soul it is little more than a biological computer. It is not sentient and it is incapable of defying its instincts. So it may be able to do math, or use tools, or speak, or cook Italian Cuisine, or build an Infinite Improbability Drive, but it will never actually decided to do these things; it simply does them because it is compelled to do so.
Man, on the other hand, can control himself (ideally). His instincts influence him, but ultimately he can ignore them, if he so wishes. And it is man alone that can will himself to do something. Man wills himself to stand, and he stands; he wills himself to fall, and he falls.
This, I think, makes man greater than not only all other living creatures, but all of creation, as well. The stars in the heavens may burn massive and bright, but ultimately they have little say in the matter. Man himself alone, among the creatures of the material universe, is capable of having some say in deciding his destiny.
Good point about the art, too. Animals may be able to recognize patterns, and might be able to reproduce them, but they ultimately cannot be creative or original. Though I see why so many modern artists like the paintings made by elephants. It’s so much like unto their own 😀
(I think it was Chesterton who said something to the effect of “Artists praise the decay of society like worms praise the decay of a corpse”)
Rhett hit the nail on the head with language – real language, not the imagined chimpanzee type. In order to be rational one has to have the capacity to analyse and categorise information. But what good would the ability to create abstract categories do you if you can’t pass this on to your offspring? Genuine language must therefore accompany rational thought and so if a species does not spontaneously exhibit the use of language then it must not be rational and therefore not have a soul. This means that only Man has a rational soul.
As to the various chimpanzees, what they are doing is equal to a pigeon pecking a button. A typical sentence of Washoe would be something of the sort: “Give give banana give banana Washoe me Washoe banana give banana me give,” which is supposed to mean “Give me a banana.” That is, it gives four or five hand arrangements in a random string. Now if you taught a pigeon to peck four or five buttons in a random sequence in order to be rewarded with food then no one would be stupid enough to label that language, and yet if a monkey imitates American sign in doing exactly the same thing they claim that this is using language! The `scientists’ are confusing themselves by using American sign instead of something neutral, like pulling a chain.
If an animal does not spontaneously use language then it does not have rational though, since it can not pass the information to its offspring and the evolutionary advantage is transitory.
In humans also language is a good indicator of rational ability. Contrary to popular opinion our ability to use language does not reach its full potential until adulthood – the same age at which rational thought reaches it full potential.
I would therefore suggest that if you want to create a test for rational souls then you should study the relationship between the use of language and moral culpability. The real question with aliens is whether their language might be so strange that we might not recognise it as a language for a while.
On art, the reason only Man creates art is that art utilises metaphor and so on, which presupposes rational thought and the use of language. Given the number of dopes who claim that the random scribblings of chimps and elephants are art, it might be better to concentrate on language. At least with language you can have an objective standard, such as passing on a fear response or other conditioned reflex without resorting to imitation or an image of the spider etc.
Actually, when I said that some animals have a crude language I was thinking about their own natural communications (like whale or bird song) rather than any artificial system foisted on them by humans. this may not fit the defintion of true “language” though.
Tim, I thought you might have meant that in your original post. Natural animal communication, vocal and otherwise, is a difficult subject to address because there is a lot there we don’t and may never be able to fully understand. Still, most observed observed animal communication seems to be tied to a specific purpose, mating, food sources, etc. Now, that doesn’t mean that all animal communication is equally complex. A whale song or dolphin’s never ending chatter certainly seems to contain more information than say a honeybee’s dance, but I’ve never heard any reason to think there is anything but a difference of degree between them. Language, on the other hand, is not simply an extremely complex honeybee dance, but something of a completely different nature.
Metw, I think you’re right that thinking of man as primarily a moral agent is the only way out of the trap laid by those who seek to put humans and animals in the same continuum. I think the problem with Jimmy’s use of the term “rational soul” is that the word “rational” has been downgraded in meaning, so that, for example, economists think of it as “acting in one’s economic self-interest.” Whereas, the best way to think about reason might be, “discernment of one’s higher ends.” In other words morality. While, an economist, in his circumscribed worldview, might see the monkey money experiment as suggesting humans and higher animals are closer than we previously thought, I think all it suggests is that the economic understanding of human reason is severely impoverished. Certain human behavior is no different than animal behavior, only more complex. That’s why monkeys, though they might not have the ingenuity to invent a system of money on their own, are complex enough to engage in pantomime of human behavior.
It’s best not to lose sight of the fact that human language and morality are of an entirely different species than animal communication and “rational” behavior. Being able to find the best means to some obvious end, is entirely different than the ability to ask the question “What ends ought I pursue?” It seems clear that language is possibly the greatest gift God gave us and more than any other attribute may have been what was meant when He made us in His image. With language and morality we have the chance to participate in some way in His mind, and more importantly the capacity to understand His revelation.
This, I think, makes man greater than not only all other living creatures, but all of creation, as well.
Leaving aside that you mean “the rest of creation” (pedants ‘r’ us 0:), remember that the angels are also creatures. We are the least of the rational creatures.
Oh, sorry. That above, unsigned post is attributed to me. I should really be more careful about that…
And:
[I]Leaving aside that you mean “the rest of creation” (pedants ‘r’ us 0:), remember that the angels are also creatures. We are the least of the rational creatures.[/I]
I was refering to the creatures in the material world, not the angels. I apologize for any confusion / heresy I may have caused 🙂