Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) built himself a morality framework by writing essays for two decades. His philosophy resembles a house built little by little, using various techniques and materials, and then painted over several times in various colours.
On the one hand, Montaigne embraced scepticism, showing very little confidence in the human ability to establish absolute truths. He studied history extensively, especially ancient Rome and ancient Greece, and realised that even the best people tend to behave inconsistently.
If the best individuals seem unable to keep a steady course, how can the rest of us find the right answers? If social pressure and local traditions play a dominant role in human thought, can we hold people responsible for their mistakes?
In contrast to prior philosophers, Montaigne focused on the individual instead of trying to establish universal truths. From his historical studies, he extracted valuable hands-on lessons, but declined to construe a systematic philosophy.
Montaigne’s goal was to improve his own effectiveness and happiness, not to prescribe the whole world how to behave. In his essays, we find elaborate discussions about ethics, but they all aim at solving specific problems.
What to do in times of adversity, asks Montaigne. What is the right course of action when things fall apart? How to avoid liars and find truthful friends. How to employ one’s time and energies wisely? Those are the questions that Montaigne tried to answer.
Conscience and Montaigne’s moral philosophy
Although Montaigne was a religious person, a Catholic, he gave more weight to history and experience than to Christian theology. Nonetheless, he agreed with theologians that each man should follow his own conscience, and do what’s right, no matter how strongly people tell him otherwise.
Montaigne viewed integrity as the cardinal virtue. He called one’s conscience “the most sacred of all possessions” and the “voice of truth.” He regarded the treason to one’s conscience as a crime practically impossible to expiate.
His moral philosophy revolved around the virtue of having a clear conscience. That explains why he favoured virtues such as modesty, tolerance and moderation. He spoke against undue influences on our conscience, and committed himself to letting other people follow their convictions.
A clear conscience is a prerequisite of serenity, concluded Montaigne, and serenity is a prerequisite of happiness. “When one’s conscience is in turmoil, it can cause deep suffering.” It is more valuable to have a clear conscience than to gain wealth or reputation.
Montaigne invented the concept of “true self” to refer to the voice of one’s conscience. When we do something ethically wrong, we are acting against our conscience and against “our true self.”
Moral virtue, Montaigne argued, consists of aligning one’s actions with one’s conscience. When we behave according to our convictions, we are staying true to our true self.
Michel de Montaigne’s essay “On conscience”
For making decisions, Montaigne relied on his conscience more than he relied on philosophy, theology and history. Those are useful tools to find general answers that one’s conscience must adapt to the circumstances at hand.
Montaigne viewed stress and anxiety as moral punishments, as the inevitable outcome of having a bad conscience. “People who have a troubled conscience,” he argued, “cannot achieve serenity. Their hearts are bound to remain in turmoil.”
In his essay “On Conscience,” Montaigne addressed the key aspects of moral philosophy. He emphasised the autonomy of one’s conscience, no matter how strong external influences are.
Integrity is the virtue of staying fully aligned with one’s conscience when confronted with opposing forces, for instance with forces coming from local traditions, culture, and religion
Montaigne employs history as a laboratory for experiments on moral issues. He confronts readers with dilemmas and helps them find the right solution or establish the parameters leading to the right solution.
History and Montaigne’s moral philosophy
What would you have done if you had been confronted with the same situation as Socrates (470-399 BC)? It was a difficult decision to make, either to accept the death sentence or escape and go into exile. Socrates accepted the death penalty because he regarded fleeing as incompatible with his own convictions.
Would you have taken the same course of action as Regulus (307-250 BC)? Captured during the war by the Carthaginians, he was sent to Rome to convey a peace proposal. Once arrived in Rome, he convinced the Romans to reject the proposal and continue the war. As a result, when he returned to Carthage, he was executed.
Montaigne also recounts the story of Cato the Younger (95-46 BC), who opposed Julius Caesar’s tyranny. In the end, Cato preferred to commit suicide rather than recognise Julius Caesar as a legitimate ruler.
None of those examples offers a clear-cut answer, but that’s not the point. Montaigne is not pushing readers in a particular direction. He just want to emphasise the importance of staying loyal to one’s conscience.
I personally think that Socrates, Regulus and Cato made the wrong decision; they should have stayed alive to fight for their ideas instead of committing suicide. Montaigne would have accepted my arguments if I had proved to him that those stay aligned with my conscience.
Thus, Montaigne’s moral philosophy is subjective to a large extent. His gave priority to the integrity of one’s conscience in the confidence that, more often than not, people can figure out the right solution.
Montaigne’s guideline for moral philosophy
What if they misinterpret the facts, make a mistake and take the wrong moral decision? Montaigne shrugged his shoulders at the possibility of errors. He took for granted that people are going to make occasional mistakes, but that’s life.
Trusting one’s conscience, Montaigne argued, remains the most reliable method for taking good, ethical decisions. It’s not a perfect method, but it is the best we have. Moral theory is not about achieving perfection, he concluded, but about getting it right most of the time.
Montaigne called one’s conscience as an “internal compass” that mostly gets it right. Especially in periods of adversity, he considered it essential to keep a clear conscience. The feeling of doing what’s right is crucial to maintaining one’s self-esteem and self-confidence.
Our conscience, said Montaigne, is our closest, most loyal friend, because it’s always reminding us of the right thing to do and what to avoid. Our moral worth and self-regard depend on our commitment to keeping a clear conscience.
Alignment of one’s actions with one’s conscience leads to a strong self-worth, observed Montaigne. It matters little if every one else has a different opinion and is pushing in the opposite direction. A clear conscience brings serenity, effectiveness, and strength that cannot be achieved otherwise.
If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in all areas of activity, I recommend you my book “Sequentiality: the amazing power of finding the right sequence of steps”