We all need clear philosophical principles to make accurate, quick decisions. In the absence of principles, decisions depend on emotions, prejudice and superstition. The essayist Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) asked himself how to make good decisions, and recorded his reasoning in detail.
Montaigne was puzzled by the wide variety of opinions that people hold when confronted with the same facts. He devoted his essay “That what’s called good and evil mostly depends on our opinions” to analysing this matter.
Although Montaigne drew the wrong conclusion, his essay is worth reading to immunise oneself against the philosophical errors of relativism, emotionalism and escapism.
Montaigne invoked historical examples that, in his eyes, are pointing to the conclusion that moral judgment only possesses subjective value. Thus, he affirms that moral judgement cannot be universal, objective, and permanent.
Instead of looking for moral principles, Montaigne denies their existence. Instead of calling for philosophical consistency and accuracy, he praises the humility and tolerance of people who refuse to pass judgement.
“That what’s called good and evil mostly depends on our opinions”
Montaigne employs examples drawn from ancient history, mostly from Greek and Rome. For instance, he points to the fact that, in the battles between the Roman Republic and King Pyrrhus (318-272 BC), Roman soldiers fought orderly, keeping their formation, while Pyrrhus’ soldiers fought chaotically.
However, says Montaigne, the Roman order and discipline failed to win over Pyrrhus’ disorganised troops. Those battles lacked a clear outcome because both opponents suffered major losses.
Pyrrhus claimed victory, but in reality, his troops had been decimated. The more battles he fought, the more men he lost, without barely gaining any land. Shortly after, he decided to abandon his ambition of conquering Italy.
Montaigne draws the wrong conclusion: He claims that it is impossible to determine whether the organised fighting style of the Romans is superior to Pyrrhus’ chaotic manoeuvres. He tries to argue that one style is as good as another, that nobody can really tell, and that this proves that moral values are subjective.
Errors in Montaigne’s moral relativism
Why do I oppose Montaigne’s logic? Because it overlooks a great deal of relevant elements. Montaigne should have taken into account the numerical inferiority of the Romans, and the fact that Roman soldiers were free men, not slaves.
It’s obviously not true that one gets the same results in life working orderly or disorderly, wisely or unwisely, with focus or without focus.
The Romans failed to defeat Pyrrhus determinedly, but they inflicted massive damage on his troops. They performed great, taking into account that they were vastly outnumbered. Their orderly, coordinated fighting style helped them deal effectively with a numerically superior enemy.
Montaigne was patently wrong in his argumentation. There is nothing in his Pyrrhus’ story that calls for moral relativism. I regard Montaigne’s conclusion as far fetched and unrealistic.
The second example employed by Montaigne is drawn from ancient Greek history. He mentions the trial held by Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) against a pirate.
When Alexander enumerates the pirate’s crimes (attacking ships in the Mediterranean, robbing travellers, taking hostages, etc.), the pirate shrugs his shoulders and replies that Alexander is also a pirate.
Is Alexander not attacking other countries and stealing their wealth, argues the pirate. Is Alexander himself not a large, successful pirate? In reality, he claims, there is no fundamental difference between Alexander and a sea robber.
Montaigne draws once more the wrong conclusion from the story. He claims that the pirate was right and that nobody can tell if Alexander (or any other ruler) is better than a sea robber. Thus, he goes on, all moral values are relative and subjective.
I find Montaigne’s conclusion outrageously wrong. Anyone can perceive the vast differences separating civilised countries from sea robbers.
Those differences revolve around fundamental principles. It is not a matter of little details. Montaigne was aware of the freedoms enjoyed by citizens of the ancient Roman Republic, or in ancient Greece. How could he fail to tell the difference between those and bunch of sea robbers?
Montaigne’s flawed arguments about moral relativism
When it comes to ancient Greece, Montaigne compares the austere, harsh, communal lifestyle in Sparta at the time of King Lycurgus (9th century BC) with the individualistic, pleasure-seeking, freedom-loving lifestyle of Athens.
Montaigne claims that one lifestyle was just as good at the other, and that it is just a matter of taste. He claims that nobody can tell for sure if the Athenian lifestyle was superior. Possibly the Spartans were happy with their way of life, he argues, and considered themselves superior.
Really? Could Montaigne not perceive the moral superiority of freedom-loving cultures over a harsh, communal, miserable existence? How could he argue with a straight face that nobody can prove which one is better?
Sadly, Montaigne refuses to draw obvious conclusions after examining the facts. He argues that, if he made a clear choice, he would be influenced by “habits and prejudices more than by the actual facts.”
I wonder how long Montaigne would have survived if he had been forced to adopt the harsh lifestyle of ancient Sparta. I am fairly sure that he would have stopped arguing that there is no difference between freedom and subservience, pleasure and pain, abundance and poverty.
Why is reading Montaigne’s essay “That what’s called good and evil mostly depends on our opinions” highly educational?
Because it will open the readers’ eyes against the dangers of moral relativism; and because it will immunise readers against unrealistic ideas, delusions, and the refusal to face the facts.
If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice day after day, I recommend you my book titled “Thriving in difficult times.”