I find it reasonable to question any ethical system that does not deliver success and happiness. What’s the point of being a good person if there are no tangible rewards? Why should one practise virtue if it does not bring practical advantages?
Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) asked those questions in the context of the sixteenth century, but today’s circumstances are not fundamentally different. We all face moral choices, and must figure out how those are going to impact our success and happiness.
I can take those questions a step further and ask whether it’s legitimate to achieve good ends by employing unethical means such as theft, murder, or false imprisonment.
Montaigne pondered precisely that question in his essay “Of bad means employed to a good end.” He scrutinized the worth of moral values in a world that is often unjust, chaotic, abusive or plain incomprehensible.
All moralists in history have asked themselves if important goals justify wrongful behaviour. Montaigne wanted to give the right answer, but sometimes, he got sidetracked.
Montaigne’s essay “Of bad means employed to a good end”
Montaigne had grasped the crucial importance of practising ethical values each day, but could not always provide a solid justification. His reasoning in this area is not always accurate.
He argues that, if we use bad means to achieve “good ends,” we would be automatically corrupting those “good ends” and destroying their “goodness.”
Was Montaigne using a correct logic? Let’s see an example: If a man is pursuing the “good goal” of building a children’s hospital, would it be unethical for him to steal bricks from a construction site where a cinema is being built?
If we adopted Montaigne’s logic, we would have to say that the bricks stolen from the cinema are corrupting the children’s hospital and destroying its goodness.
However, there is room for improvement in Montaigne’s argument because, once the hospital becomes operational, will patients care where the bricks came from? Even if patients find out that the bricks had been stolen, will they view the hospital as evil?
Montaigne’s logic proves inaccurate in this case because it fails to point to the key relevant principle. Unethical behaviour such as stealing is wrong because it violates a crucial ethical principle, not because it turns a “good end” into a “bad end.”
In my example, the bricks thief is infringing the principle of private property. That’s the key problem because, as soon as he has destroyed the principle, he will be unable to oppose anyone who wants to steal the hospital’s doors or surgical equipment.
Principles and Montaigne’s concept of virtue
Montaigne had understood that ethics needs to be consistent because it revolves around principles, but instead of finding the key principle, he sometimes got sidetracked by secondary discussions.
Success and happiness result from moral principles (justice, for example) that are practised consistently. It’s great to weigh “good ends” versus “bad ends provided that the discussion is referring to the underlying key principle. If we overlook the key principle, it’s difficult to make a correct ethical evaluation.
Montaigne rightly remarked that unethical individuals “will often become victims of their own misdeeds,” but once again, he failed to pinpoint the underlying key principle.
Without reference to principles (e.g., justice), it is difficult to determine the right course of action, and figure out how to achieve success and happiness.
The failure to identify the precise principle made Montaigne question whether Themistocles (524-459 BC) was really a hero because he had deceived the Persians in the Battle of Salamis to prevent them from invading Athens.
If we apply the key relevant principle (i.e., self-defence), it is obvious that Themistocles was a hero and that his deceit was ethically justified. Of course, the Athenians had the moral right to deceive the Persians in order to prevent the invasion. How could Montaigne fail to see that Themistocles was right?
Accuracy and Montaigne’s concept of virtue
Montaigne displayed the same inaccuracy in the opposite direction, when he asked himself if the Inquisition had been right in using torture in the 12th and 13th centuries to protect the Christian religion against heretics.
He rightly concluded that torture is unacceptable, but also mentioned the pursuit of “a good end.” Instead, he should have just identified the key underlying principle: the protection of human rights.
In sixteenth-century France, they would have spoken about human dignity instead of human rights, but the meaning is the same.
Montaigne’s statement that the Inquisition was pursuing “a good end” is irrelevant. Montaigne should have dropped the discussion about “good ends,” and simply reject all kinds of torture because they are incompatible with human dignity.
We really need to identify the precise underlying ethical principle each time because, if we fail to do that, the questions become difficult to answer.
For instance, when Montaigne asks whether Constantine the Great (272-337 AD) had been right to use political violence to maintain his power, it does not really matter if Constantine was pursuing the “good end” of supporting the Christian religion.
The key underlying principle should have led Montaigne to condemn all political violence and drop any discussions about “good ends.”
Montaigne’s essay “Of bad means employed to a good end” is certainly worth reading because it challenges us to identify the key principles when confronted with hard choices.
When confronted with difficult situations, let us first check if we are using the key relevant principle, so that we do not get sidetracked.
If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in all kind of situations here and now, I recommend you my book “Rational living, rational working.”