Many people today ask themselves if all cultures are equal, or if some cultures are superior to others; the question is as old as humanity, and the answer is crucially important.

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) asked himself this same question in the sixteenth century, and examined in great detail the arguments from both sides. His fine philosophical analysis is still worth reading nowadays.

In the sixteenth century, intellectuals regarded Europe as the leading culture. They took for granted that all things European were vastly superior to other cultures. Neither America, Africa, or Asia could compete with Europe, they thought.

Montaigne was the first essayist to contest this presumption. He realized that European architecture and military technology were far superior to those in other countries, but he argued that those do not necessarily render Europe superior in all areas.

Human nature is the same everywhere, noted Montaigne. It makes no sense to praise a culture as “superior” without having assessed if individuals in that culture are actually happier than those in other cultures.

For instance, argues Montaigne, we should not dismiss too quickly the lifestyle of Brazilian tribes. They might appear “barbaric” at first sight, but are they not happier because they live closer to nature? Do they not live more authentically and morally than the average European?

Montaigne’s defence of cultural relativism

Montaigne defended cultural relativism, that is, the idea that all cultures are equal. He refused to use the terms “civilized” and “barbaric,” arguing that they are purely subjective. People tend to regard their own lifestyle as civilized, and everything else as barbaric, he observed.

I agree with Montaigne that prejudice and personal taste can play a role in how we judge another culture, but does it play the dominant role? I very much doubt it.

French people consider their cuisine better than the English one, but does this aspect render French culture “superior”? Or do paintings by Rafael, Leonardo and Michelangelo render Italian culture superior to every other culture?

I love French cuisine and Italian art, but my personal taste does not constitute a solid argument for categorizing a culture as “superior” or “inferior.”

Nonetheless, Montaigne was deadly wrong in regarding all cultures as equal. His principal argument is that valuations are purely subjective: what person A finds great, might be rated as awful by person B.

According to Montaigne, it’s impossible to tell who is right. Maybe A is right, or maybe B, or maybe both of them are right to a certain extent. Montaigne also points out that both A and B are influenced by their personal history, which prevents them from passing a fair judgement on anything.

Montaigne’s essay “That we taste nothing pure”

Montaigne devoted to this subject one of his essays, the one titled “That we taste nothing pure.” The essay argues that all humans are influenced by their personal history, emotions, and taste, and that those factors prevent them from reaching purely objective conclusions.

If Montaigne’s argument was right, it would be impossible to figure out whether one culture is better than other. It would also be impossible to pass judgement on a person’s character or intentions.

I contend that Montaigne was wrong in his all-embracing, radical scepticism; his cultural relativism is placing at the same level the lowest and the highest human achievement; it’s rating equal the deprived and the prosperous, the indolent and the productive.

Montaigne calls human intelligence “a mixed cup of wine,” referring to the habit of Socrates (470-399 BC) to drink wine mixed with other substances (water, herbs, etc.). In this way, Socrates could drink large quantities of wine without getting drunk.

Since our intelligence is “a mixed cup of wine,” we are not able to pass objective, pure judgements. Thus, Montaigne opts for rating all cultures equally good or equally bad.

Montaigne’s reference to Socrates’ “mixed cup of wine” is a historical curiosity that fails to add weight to his argument. We do not know how much wine Socrates was drinking, but we do know that people can pass accurate judgements if they deploy the necessary effort.

Montaigne and the story of Pausanias

How could we judge a culture accurately, if we cannot even judge a person’s character with certainty, argued Montaigne. In order to support his views, he recounts the story of Pausanias (520-471 BC), whom people had first regarded as a hero, and later as a criminal.

Pausanias, a warrior of Spartan origin, had played a key role in the Greek victory against Persia in the Battle of Plataea. As a result, he had occupied leading posts in the ensuing decade.

However, he became the object of accusations of treachery in the year 472 BC, but those might have been caused by envy or political intrigue. In 471 BC, Pausanias was tried in Sparta, found guilty of treason, sentenced to death, and executed right away.

Montaigne argues that people must have been wrong about Pausanias’ character. Either he was a virtuous hero or a traitor, but he could not be both. The underlying problem is that it is extremely hard to judge people accurately, he argues. Thus, we are also unable to tell whether one culture is better than other.

The logic employed by Montaigne is profoundly flawed. If the ancient Spartans had misjudged Pausanias, that’s too bad, but their error does not mean that humans are unable to assess behaviour, virtues, and cultural traits.

Montaigne stated that “we are all subject to influences and errors” is true, but that’s why we should remain attentive when it comes to making important decisions.

If we make the effort to check the details properly, our logic doesn’t need to become a “mixed cup of wine.” Montaigne was underrating human capabilities to support his views of cultural relativism, but each of us can perceive the differences that separate prosperous, freedom-loving cultures from the rest.

If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in all sort of situations here and now, I recommend you my book titled “Sequentiality: The amazing power of finding the right sequence of steps.”