Romans 1:21-22“They became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools.”
In the present age of artificial intelligence, it has become common to assert that man is superior to machines. This claim is often made as though it were obvious, needing no defense. Yet when examined carefully, it becomes clear that such a statement is usually made in a generic and theoretical sense rather than in an individual and actual one. Machines already surpass many men not only in tasks associated with intelligence, but also in efficiency, consistency, and productivity in work. This fact forces us to reconsider what is really meant by human superiority. The question must therefore be posed with precision: in what sense is man superior to machines, and does that superiority exist in actual individuals, or only in abstract descriptions of human nature?
In classical philosophy, man is defined as a rational animal. This definition expresses what belongs to human nature, namely the capacity for understanding, reasoning, and deliberate choice. Machines, by contrast, are artifacts produced by human ingenuity and ordered toward particular functions. From this perspective, it is correct to say that man is superior by nature. He possesses capacities that are not attributed to machines in the same way. However, such a statement must be properly understood. A generic claim describes what belongs to a nature, not what is actually realized in every individual. To say that man is rational is not to say that every man reasons well, but only that he is capable of doing so. Thus, generic superiority is real, but it is conditional, depending entirely on whether the capacities of human nature are actually exercised.
This distinction between generic and individual reality can be clarified by a familiar example. It is commonly said that men are stronger than women. This is true as a general statement about classes. Yet in actual experience, many women are stronger than many men. A trained female athlete may easily exceed an untrained or weakened man in physical strength. The generic claim remains true, but it does not determine every individual case. In the same way, to say that man is more intelligent than machines may be true in a generic sense, while in actual cases machines may surpass many individual men in performance. The same principle applies beyond intelligence, extending into the whole field of human work. To say that man is capable of rational, purposeful labor does not mean that every man works well, works efficiently, or produces good results.
When we turn from abstract definitions to actual individuals, the situation becomes clear. Most men do not reason with clarity, nor do they possess well-ordered knowledge. They are often governed by habit, impulse, and the influence of others rather than by disciplined thought. Much of what they call knowledge is borrowed rather than understood, inconsistent rather than coherent, and applied poorly or not at all. Meanwhile, machines process information with precision, apply rules consistently, and produce correct outputs with remarkable reliability. They do not suffer from distraction, fatigue, or emotional disturbance. In many practical tasks, machines already exceed the performance of most human beings.
This superiority is not limited to intellectual tasks. In the realm of work, machines have already surpassed human beings in countless ways. They perform repetitive tasks without error, maintain steady output without fatigue, and execute complex operations with speed and accuracy. In manufacturing, data processing, logistics, and even areas once thought to require human judgment, machines now produce better and more consistent results than many workers. If work is judged by productivity, reliability, and efficiency, then machines frequently appear superior not only in thinking, but in doing.
The tension between these observations can be resolved by recognizing that superiority by nature does not guarantee superiority in practice. Man is superior in the order of nature, but machines may be superior in the order of performance. Aristotle himself teaches that man, though the highest of animals by nature, becomes the worst when he fails to live according to reason. This applies not only to thought, but to action. A man who fails to govern himself will also fail in his work. His labor will be disordered, inconsistent, and often ineffective. Superiority, therefore, is not secured simply by possessing a higher nature. It must be actualized. Without this actualization, the higher nature remains unrealized and, in practical terms, meaningless.
Modern discussions often rely on generic claims to defend human superiority, asserting that man understands, reasons, and works with purpose. Yet when these claims are applied universally they give credit that many individuals do not deserve. A man who cannot explain what he believes, who contradicts himself, and who follows opinion without examination is not exercising rationality in any meaningful sense. Likewise, a man who works carelessly, inconsistently, or without discipline is not exercising the full capacity of human labor. To appeal to human nature in such cases is to defend a potential that remains unrealized. This leads to a critical insight: generic superiority, if not realized, is practically meaningless. It does not manifest in thought, does not produce results in work, and does not distinguish the individual from the machine.
If man is to be judged honestly, he must be judged not by what he is capable of in theory, but by what he actually does. Machines are evaluated strictly by their performance, their outputs, and their effectiveness. If the same standard is applied to man, it becomes clear that a man is not superior simply because he is human. He is superior only if he actually understands, actually reasons well, and actually works well. Otherwise, he may be inferior in practice, even to the machines he has created.
From this, a decisive conclusion follows. Individual men must make themselves actually superior. A generic superiority, based on potential, cannot be claimed as an actual superiority. It must be achieved through disciplined thought, the pursuit of truth, the formation of sound judgment, and the ordering of one’s actions. It must also be achieved through disciplined work, careful execution, and consistency in effort. Only then does the capacity of human nature become visible in actual life. This conclusion aligns with both philosophical and scriptural teaching. Aristotle teaches that man is best when perfected and worst when corrupted. Christ teaches that men are known by their fruits and judged by their deeds. In both cases, the emphasis is not on nature alone, but on what is done with it.
Scripture frequently describes man as an instrument or vessel, which reinforces the same point. A tool is judged by its use, and so too is man. Yet unlike a machine, man participates in his own use. He can direct himself, improve himself, or degrade himself. He may become a good instrument, ordered and effective, or a bad one, disordered and unreliable. In this respect, a poorly ordered human life may be less effective than a well-designed machine. This applies equally to thought and to work. A machine that performs its task reliably is, in that task, superior to a man who performs it poorly.
The comparison between man and machine thus reveals a deeper truth. Machines achieve their function by design and operate consistently within their limits. Man, however, must achieve his function through effort and may fail to do so. This introduces both risk and responsibility. The distinction between man and machine is not secured automatically by nature. It must be secured through action, both in thought and in work.
The claim that man is superior to machines is therefore true in a generic sense, but this truth does not automatically appear in individual cases. In practice, many men fail to realize their nature, while machines perform their functions with increasing effectiveness. As a result, generic superiority, if left unrealized, has little practical significance. The true measure of man is not what he is in theory, but what he becomes in reality. The proper conclusion is not simply that man is superior, but that man must make himself superior. Only when he lives according to reason, understands truth, and works with order and discipline does his superiority become actual. Otherwise, in both thinking and working, he will be surpassed by the very machines he has created, and the difference between them will remain only in theory, not in fact.
Mr. William C. Michael, O.P.
This article has been produced by Mr. William C. Michael, O.P., through directed composition using AI tools, a method that allows for the regular and efficient sharing of important information with the CLAA community. All ideas expressed herein are his own unless noted otherwise, and the text has been reviewed, edited and approved by him prior to publication.