Can a person become happy if he refrains from taking sides, making decisions, and pursuing clear objectives? Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) addressed this subject in his essay “On Moderation,” where he praises moderation as a crucial virtue.
Montaigne defines “moderation” as the contrary to “extreme ideas and behaviour.” Thus, he is giving a subjective definition where “moderation” means the middle of the road between two points arbitrarily chosen.
According to Montaigne’s definition, all strong desires and emotions are evil, or at the very least, counterproductive. He is calling for “moderation” in all areas of life because he regards all human passions as inappropriate.
Montaigne equates “moderation” with “balance,” and then proclaims them universally good. It doesn’t matter what subject one is addressing, or which circumstances one is facing. If we take sides, we are “unbalanced” and ethically wrong.
In his call for “moderation” and “equanimity,” Montaigne is invoking the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates (470-399 BC) and ancient Stoics such as Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) and Marcus Aurelius (161-180 AD).
Montaigne doesn’t even try to explain why “moderation” is better than passion; his ethical model is, to put it mildly, weird. Why does Montaigne consider a moderate liar more virtuous than a consistent truth teller? Is a moderate thief more virtuous than a man who consistently respects other people’s property?
Montaigne’s essay “On Moderation”
Instead of explaining the alleged benefits of “moderation,” Montaigne undertakes a fierce attack against “extreme actions” and “excesses.” He regards moderation as the key to serenity, well-being, and happiness, and employs historical anecdotes to prove his point.
The problem is that, if we analyse those historical anecdotes impartially, we must draw the opposite conclusion. Instead of viewing “moderation” as a virtue, we bear witness that it often results from cowardice, confusion and indecision. Instead of a recipe for happiness, it is a recipe for anxiety.
Montaigne praises Socrates as a practitioner of moderation, simplicity and self-control, but is it really true? Socrates’ death shows that his “moderation” was based on his inability to think clearly, escape Athens and go into exile.
Socrates’ acceptance of a profoundly unfair judicial decision should not be praised as “moderation” or “balance.” Instead of accepting death, Socrates should have bribed his guards, break out of jail, and flee Athens. His “moderation” cost him his life unnecessarily.
Montaigne also mentions Seneca as example of “balance” and “moderation,” but his arguments do not add up. Seneca did write extensively about balance and moderation, but he rarely practised them.
The truth is that Seneca accumulated an immense fortune by employing his public office to his advantage. The fact that he wrote about “balance” and “moderation” is irrelevant for moral purposes. Seneca must have been ashamed of his self-serving behaviour, and was just trying to justify himself.
Montaigne’s examples on the nature of ethical truth
Montaigne also shoots himself in the foot by mentioning the first Roman Emperor: Augustus (63 BC-14 AD). His praise for Augustus’ “balance” and “moderation” is not based on facts.
In reality, Augustus exercised his power in an increasingly authoritarian manner. While pretending to cultivate “balance” and “moderation,” he ruthlessly eliminated his opponents and paved the way for vast power abuses in the ensuing centuries.
Montaigne’s best arguments in favour of moderation are his references to the Greek philosopher Pythagoras (570-495 BC) and the Spartan King Agesilaus II (444-360 BC), who seemed to have embraced a modest, self-disciplined lifestyle.
Unfortunately, Montaigne fails to inquire if Pythagoras and Agesilaus could have been happier if they had renounced their balance and moderation to pursue their dreams.
Success and Montaigne’s views on ethical truth
The weakest argument put forward by Montaigne is his reference to the Roman general Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus (519-438 BC). Indeed, Cincinnatus is known because, after winning the war, he did not abuse the situation.
Instead of trying to consolidate his rule, Cincinnatus gave up his military power and returned to his farm. Montaigne calls Cincinnatus a great example of moderation, but keeps silent about Cincinnatus extreme behaviour during the war.
How do you think that Cincinnatus grew highly successful as a general? He won the war thanks to his extreme, relentless determination, not because of “balance” and “moderation.”
If we look at the lives of happy people, we see little balance and moderation. Montaigne is deadly wrong in claiming that moderation is the key to a fulfilling life. The opposite seems to be true.
Happy people define ambitious goals, work hard to achieve them, and do not embrace a balanced lifestyle. Montaigne does not justify his statement that excess leads to destruction.
Instead, I would say that foolish excess leads to destruction, but that destruction also results from foolish balance, foolish moderation, and foolish anything.
Montaigne was wrong: it is simply not true that the middle path is always the safest. Life turns to chaos very quickly when we refuse to make decisions, and get stuck in the middle of the road.
If you are interested in applying rational ideas to everyday life in all situations, I recommend you my book “Undisrupted: How highly effective people deal with disruptions.”