The search for happiness relies on certainty in reasoning and effectiveness in action. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) coined a brand of moral relativism that, he assumed, can help us reduce mistakes in reasoning.
Montaigne’s arguments give us abundant food for thought, in particular when it comes to making crucial decisions. How much can you trust your perceptions and logic? What mistakes are typically made by people under pressure? All in all, these discussions aim at improving one’s chances of success in life.
In an essay titled “On the uncertainty of our judgement,” we can find Montaigne’s key questions about morality and why he is favouring, in some cases, moral relativism.
Montaigne states as a starting point that every human feels the pressure of his environment, physical and social. His ideas and desires are, to a certain extent, influenced by culture. Even his opinion of himself depends, at least in part, of what others are thinking.
I find it fair to acknowledge that humans can perceive facts wrongly. Even if we go through the same situation, we can feel differently and perceive the situation differently. Our emotions can distort how we see the world, and drives us in the wrong direction.
However, Montaigne was wrong in concluding that there is no objective truth. The fact that humans often make mistakes does not mean that it is impossible to do things correctly.
Montaigne’s essay “On the uncertainty of our judgement”
Individuals have the potential to figure out the truth, but this does not mean that the truth is self-evident. Gaining certainty is hard because it requires intelligence, efforts and motivation, but it can be done. Truth is neither subjective nor relative.
Montaigne resorts to historical examples to prove that truth (especially ethical truth) is relative, but none of his examples can withstand close examination. In fact, they lead us to the opposite conclusion, namely, that it’s hard to discover the truth, but that discovery and certainty are possible.
For instance, Montaigne recounts that King Pyrrhus (318-272 BC) had consulted a soothsayer before engaging war in Italy against Rome. The soothsayer encouraged Pyrrhus to go ahead and predicted severe destruction for Rome.
Pyrrhus went ahead and invaded southern Italy, fighting a large battle in Heraclea, in the the Basilicata region. He caused severe destruction for Rome, as the soothsayer had predicted, but his own troops were also decimated.
Shortly after, Pyrrhus had to give up his plans of conquering Italy. It had become obvious that his expectations has been too optimistic. Rome’s fighting force proved far more impressive than Pyrrhus had anticipated.
Montaigne’s mistake about moral relativism
Montaigne draws a totally wrong conclusion from the story. He tells readers that, if Pyrrhus failed to forecast the future, no one can do it. If Pyrrhus failed to assess the situation correctly, nobody can.
I find Montaigne’s logic weak and twisted. We do not know how much intelligence Pyrrhus had collected before invading Italy, but we do know that it is pointless to consult soothsayers.
The correct conclusion is that Pyrrhus should have deployed more diligence in gathering intelligence. He should have taken the time to spy on the Romans and obtain certainty about their military capabilities.
Montaigne fails to realize that it was possible for Pyrrhus to gain certainty, but he failed to take the necessary steps. For all big projects and big decisions in life, we should make sure that we gain sufficient information and assess it accurately.
In the same essay, Montaigne is referring to Timoleon (411-337 BC) who had generally speaking proven to be an excellent ruler, but who took the life of his brother Timophanes to stop him from becoming a dictator in Corinth.
I concur with Montaigne that Timoleon must have found it hard to kill his brother, but on the other hand, he had vowed to protect the freedoms of Corinth.
After Timophanes’ death, the citizens of Corinth didn’t pass a unanimous judgement on Timoleon. Some citizens regarded Timoleon as a hero, as a man that had done what he had to do. Others condemned Timoleon’s action, which they viewed as an unjustifiable fratricide.
What does the story prove? Very little. Montaigne draws the wrong conclusion. He says that no one can be certain whether Timoleon was a hero or a criminal, and on that basis, he claims that moral values are relative.
Moral certainty and Michel de Montaigne
Montaigne fails to see that moral values are not the issue at stake. The real problem is that we lack conclusive information about Timoleon’s actions.
These are some of the questions we need elucidate in order to pass moral judgement: Did Timoleon have a legal obligation to protect Corinth? If so, could he have stopped his brother without killing him? Did Timoleon act in self-defence? What were the precise circumstances of the killing?
Montaigne could have achieved moral certainty on the basis of sufficient information. Like the jury in a criminal trial, one needs to scrutinize the facts and figure out the truth. It’s hard to discover the truth, but it is possible and desirable.
Reality is objective, and so are moral values. The key lesson from Montaigne is that most people give up too quickly their search for moral certainty. They are too lazy, too busy, or too self-absorbed; they fail to deploy the necessary efforts to judge people and facts accurately.
Montaigne’s essay “On the uncertainty of our judgement” is worth reading because it gives us a life-or-death warning. It is demonstrating how hard it is to achieve moral certainty, but on the other hand, it remind us of the high value of knowing the truth, especially in crisis situations.
Rationality and Michel de Montaigne
When Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) fell severely ill in his expedition to Asia, his physician Philip of Acarnania prepared a herbal remedy for him to drink. However, a day earlier, a letter had arrived, warning Alexander against a poisoning attempt.
Montaigne recounts that Alexander drank the herbal remedy without hesitation because of his trust in Philip of Acarnania. The remedy proved effective and Alexander recovered shortly after. Had he been wrong in trusting Philip of Acarnania? Does the story speak in favour of moral relativism?
I regard the story as an encouragement for moral objectivity and certainty. Alexander had rightly judged Philip of Acarnania to be a competent, devoted physician. He had known Philip of Acarnania for years, and held a high opinion of him. A warning letter was insufficient to sway a solid, proven conclusion.
Let’s learn from Montaigne to stay alert and think rationally in particularly when judging important matters and key people.
Montaigne correctly noted that, in every situation, there are a hundred facts to be reckoned with, but he should have then encouraged readers to focus on the key facts and draw accurate conclusions.
Indeed, our emotions can trouble our reasoning and “distort the weight and significance of facts,” but we have the ability to withhold our judgement until we regain a clear head.
Our own desires and prejudices can render us blind to the truth, but only if we fail to check our logic. Let’s keep in mind that certainty (factual and ethical) is attainable and worth the effort.
If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in all sort of situations, I recommend you my book “Asymmetry: The shortcut to success when success seems impossible.”