Whether the latter effort will be successful remains to be seen, but the conflation of man with other mammals is hard to credit. The differences between human beings and animals are not simply quantitative - humans are not simply more intelligent - they're qualitative as well.
Humans, for example, have a sense of beauty and a desire to be surrounded by it. We possess a sense of humor, a sense of morality, a sense of the transcendent, an ability to create music and an ability to think abstractly, all of which are unique in the animal kingdom.
Paul Gosselin, in his book Flight from the Absolute, adds a few more unique human capacities. He writes that in addition to some of the aforementioned, mankind's abilities include:
...the awareness of his own existence, awareness of his future death (even when not imminent), his ability to develop and perceive his identity, his ability to develop a belief system and build a culture/civilization on this basis.Perhaps, though, the most amazing ability possessed uniquely by humans is language. Gosselin quotes linguist Noam Chomsky who wrote:
When we study human language, we are approaching what some might call the "human essence," the distinctive qualities of mind that are, so far as we know, unique to man ....this creative aspect of normal language use is one fundamental factor that distinguishes human language from any known system of animal communication.Ideas have consequences. Gosselin observes that if the difference between humans and animals is only quantitative we're led to the conclusion that there's no reason to treat humans differently from animals. He quotes philosopher Mortimer Adler in this regard:
If a difference in degree justifies a difference in treatment, why would not superior men be justified in treating inferior men in whatever way men think they're justified in treating non-human animals....[Men] kill animals for for the enjoyment of the sport; or, ... for the purposes...of medical research.Indeed, the superior/inferior distinction has been used throughout human history to justify all manner of slaughter and slavery.
Now, if these actions can be justified by nothing more than a difference in degree between human and non-human animals, why is not the same justification available for the actions of Nazis or other racists?
"But," someone might object, "humans have a responsibility to act differently because we're aware of what we're doing." Yes, but then we're not only conceding that humans are indeed unique, we're imputing to them a special responsibility that no other creature has. Where does this responsibility come from? If we're solely a product of blind, purposeless evolutionary forces how can we be burdened with any responsibility other than, perhaps, to insure our own survival?
We humans insist that we have a responsibility to treat others as equals, not as inferiors, and not only this but a responsibility, too, to preserve the earth's resources for future generations. But such responsibilities only exist if they're imposed on us from outside ourselves.
The naturalistic view that tells us that we're just an animal leaves no room for any such outside imposition of responsibility, nor can it it account for it by invoking the evolutionary process. It is, in other words, a totally baseless assumption, an article of blind faith, that the naturalist has no reason for holding other than that it makes him feel good.
