The question of cultural relativism has profound, wide- and long-reaching implications. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) emerged in the sixteenth century as the first defender of moral and cultural relativism, but never grasped the full impact of his arguments.
For instance, Montaigne failed to grasp the implications of seemingly anodyne statements such as “pleasure can never be pure, because it is always mixed with some negative emotions” or “every joy in life is accompanied by some measure of fear.”
What is even worse, Montaigne sustained that “every good quality contains some part of evil” and that “humans can never be totally happy because there will always be some factor that undermines their joy.”
I regard those statements as philosophical horrors because they undermine all human achievements. Why should anyone strive to behave honestly if virtue is impossible to attain? What is the point of working hard and intelligently if one can never be happy?
Montaigne’s determined cultural relativism (the idea that all cultures, barbaric or civilized, have the same value) mirrors his moral relativism. In essence, Montaigne favours a subjective, inconsistent approach to individual and societal ethics.
The consequences of moral and cultural relativism are lethal because they deprive people of the ability to think logically. In defending that there is no good or bad (at least, not in a pure form), or that pure happiness is impossible, Montaigne is depriving people of their motivation to enjoy life.
Confusion arising from Montaigne’s moral relativism
Montaigne’s relativism creates deep confusion in all areas of human activity. How is one supposed to make decisions if he is incapable of telling the difference between right and wrong? If “pure” happiness is unattainable, what’s the point of ambition, honesty, and hard work?
Unsurprisingly, Montaigne proves unable to answer those questions. His essays undermine moral and cultural certainty in all areas, but fail to replace them with a workable doctrine. His ethical relativism leads to indifference, lethargy, and poverty.
Late in life, while revising his essays to prepare a second edition, Montaigne must have realized that his moral relativism (individual and cultural) left too many questions unanswered.
As a result, Montaigne devised a doctrine that made things even worse. He presented his doctrine in an essay titled “That our actions should be judged by our intentions.”
Since he had deprived reality (ambition, work, achievement, happiness) of moral or cultural meaning, he came up with the doctrine that the crucial element for telling good from bad are a person’s intentions.
Montaigne’s doctrine only made things worse because of its obscurantism. If our intentions establish the difference between good and bad, how can we decide which profession to embrace or whom to marry? How can we select the right type of friends or the right type of investments?
In his essay, Montaigne calls for passing ethical judgement (individual or societal) depending on the underlying intention.
He labels human intentions as “good” if they are altruistic, and as “bad” if their selfish or malicious. Nonetheless, he notes that well-intended actions can have disastrous results because “people are fallible.”
“That our actions should be judged by our intentions”
At this point, Montaigne reached the zenith of his ethical confusion; after affirming that we cannot judge actions because of their mixed characteristics, he calls for passing judgement on intentions that we can not perceive.
Montaigne’s ethical doctrine does make any sense. It only shows that Montaigne had painted himself into a philosophical corner, from which he proved unable to escape. Unfortunately, instead of improving his logic, he doubled down by pointing to meaningless historical anecdotes.
For instance, Montaigne claims that Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) should not be morally condemned for killing his friend Cleitus in a fit of rage because, when Alexander did so, he was drunk.
Really? Had Alexander not decided himself to drink a large amount of alcohol? Why should he not be held responsible for the consequences of his drinking? Montaigne’s argument that Alexander did not have bad intentions is nonsensical.
Montaigne also mentions Themistocles (524-459 BC), who had helped save Athens from a Persian invention at the Battle of Salamis (480 BC), but later deserted the Athenians, changed sides, and started to work for the Persian king Artaxerxes.
According to Montaigne’s doctrine, Themistocles should not be condemned for his treason because he had complex reasons, such as the fact that he had lost his public office, that he had fallen out with his friends, etc.).
Really? If a capable general deserts his country to join the enemy, should we not call that treason? When Themistocles changed sides, he knew the details of the Athenian defensive capabilities. In those circumstances, I do find it logical that his compatriots accused him of treason.
Problems with Montaigne’s moral and cultural relativism
Montaigne’s ethical and cultural relativism lead nowhere. They cannot be remedied by the doctrine of examining the intentions of the concerned person because, more often than not, those intentions will remain unknown.
I cannot endorse Montaigne’s statement that “the value of a human being lies primarily in his heart” because we need first to judge the person’s behaviour. We should first assess what we perceive before speculating about intentions or feelings.
In order to rectify Montaigne’s mistakes, it is essential to re-affirm the primacy of human perception and logic. Humans do have the ability to pass accurate judgements, amend errors, and make good choices in their own lives.
If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in all kind of circumstances, I recommend you my book “The 10 principles of rational living.”