Despite his erudition and hard work, Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) never grasped the need for an objective morality. I find in his essays a relentless effort to obscure ethical truths in order to preach moral relativism and contorted ethical equality.
Montaigne employed ethical fallacies as arguments once and again; he employed “universal emotions” to call for ethical indifference, and “diverse cultural identity” to call for empathy towards immorality.
His essay “That men through various ways arrive at the same thing” provides salient examples of those fallacies. By arguing for the equality of paths, Montaigne is obscuring vast differences in goals.
By focusing on irrelevant anecdotes and details, Montaigne is deviating the attention from key ethical questions. Instead of engaging discussions about good and evil, he is chasing rabbits in all directions, rabbits that lead readers towards a dead end.
Montaigne’s argument is that individuals in all cultures are pursuing common goals, and that those goals reflect universal aspects of human nature. In this way, he is predicating cultural relativism. He is employing a long discussion on diverse paths to hide massive differences in goals.
Montaigne’s essay “That men through various ways arrive at the same thing”
For instance, Montaigne is comparing the different paths in antiquity for attaining fame and success. In ancient Greece, the paths could involve achievements in war, philosophy, science, or in the arts; while in ancient Rome, people could attain fame and success only through politics and war.
As ancient Greek examples (around 500 BC), Montaigne is mentioning Pericles, an elected Athenian leader who promoted arts and democracy, and Socrates, a philosopher who made key contributions to knowledge theory and ethics.
As ancient Roman examples (50 BC to 15 AD), Montaigne is mentioning Julius Caesar, a military dictator, and Emperor Augustus, the final destroyer of the Roman Republic. Their achievements, Montaigne says, are recorded by many statutes and monuments.
Montaigne goes ahead unrelentingly with examples that are supposed to prove the equality of paths to fame and success, but implicitly, he is discussing the goals, not the paths.
Surreptitiously, Montaigne is predicating the equality of all ethical values and cultural identities. He is driving home the idea that there is no fundamental difference between Socrates and Julius Caesar, or between Pericles and Emperor Augustus.
Montaigne’s error is not innocent. It cannot be excused by insufficient research, lack of knowledge, excessive complexity, or terminological confusion.
Ethical confusion in Michel de Montaigne
Why am I convinced that the error is not innocent? Because Montaigne committed it again and again. His essay “That men through various ways arrive at the same thing” repeatedly uses the moral fallacy, and the same fallacy appears in other essays.
Instead of keeping the mistake isolated, Montaigne does his best to amplify it. Does he want to turn ethical confusion into a dominant philosophy? I think so, because he is also arguing for the equality of all ethical doctrines.
In the same essay, Montaigne is telling us that Christianity, Stoicism and Epicureanism share many ideas. Subsequently, he blows his comparisons out of proportion, proclaiming that all philosophical doctrines are, to a certain extent, equal, because all cultural identities are, to a certain extent, universal.
I find it difficult to believe that Montaigne chose by chance to discuss meaningless details to drive home a totally false idea and render it popular.
When discussing Christianity, Montaigne mentions Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 AD) and Augustine (354-430 AD). He is reminding us that Christianity preaches spiritual salvation and moral living.
According to Montaigne, there are key similarities between Christian doctrines and Stoicism. He is referring to Stoicism as predicated by Zeno of Citium (334-262 BC), Seneca (4 BC-65 AD), and Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD). Those called for the rational control of emotions, serenity, and resilience.
Montaigne is also arguing that Christianity shares key ideas with Epicureanism, that is, the philosophical doctrine initiated by Epicurus (341-270 BC). He viewed simple pleasures as the path to peace of mind, well-being, and happiness.
Montaigne’s acceptance of cultural identities
To make things worse, Montaigne is also arguing for major commonalities between Christianity and Scepticism. He refers to the Scepticism predicated by Pyrrho of Elis (360-270 BC), who called for the suspension of all judgement. Pyrrho advised us to protect our peace of mind by never passing judgement.
Montaigne’s comparisons don’t withstand close examination and remain unconvincing. If Christianity predicates a distinct moral system, how can it be compatible with Scepticism that is opposing any values? If Epicureanism advises pleasure, how can it be compatible with Stoicism that advises abstinence?
The discussion becomes even more absurd if we speak of cultural identities. I must categorise as nonsense Montaigne’s argument that one set of moral values is as good as any other.
To disprove Montaigne’s equality of cultural identities, I just need to point to history, which provides countless examples of how different ethical values lead to different results. The wider the ethical differences, the wider the difference in outcome.
When Montaigne writes that “different cultures can arrive at the same goals through their own practices,” he is overlooking that the goals are different from the very beginning.
Pericles was not pursuing the same goals as Julius Caesar; and Socrates wasn’t pursuing the same goals as Augusts. Their philosophical views are not even close.
Despite Montaigne’s mistakes, I do advise reading his essay “That men through various ways arrive at the same thing” in order to train oneself in refuting philosophical fallacies.
If you are interested in applying rational ideas to situations here and now, I recommend you my book “Asymmetry: The shortcut to success when success seems impossible.”