When historians refer to scepticism in the works by Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592), they mean a general reluctance to accept absolute truths. Taken to extremes, scepticism weakens the confidence in one’s perceptions and ability to reason.
Since Montaigne wrote essays during a twenty-year period, his own definition of scepticism shifted from general doubts, to self-doubt, to doubts about society’s institutions.
The latter is particularly interesting for modern readers because, as Montaigne put it, “it is foolish to consider our own preferences as the only valid model.” When looking at aspects of social organization, Montaigne favoured open debates, and warned against the blanket condemnation of unusual ideas.
Indeed, too many people will automatically steer away from unfamiliar ideas or products, calling them abhorrent, worthless or dangerous, only to realize later that they have been fooled by their own prejudices.
Montaigne devoted his essay “Of a defect in our policies” specifically to applying his scepticism to social organisation. It questions the deficiencies and inconsistencies in various social institutions, especially in the field of law.
Montaigne’s essay “Of a defect in our policies”
Although Montaigne was a lawyer himself and had long practised law in southern France, he was far from happy with the results. Since he had witnessed how the strict application of the law sometimes leads to injustice, he argues that common sense should prevail over a literal interpretation of legal texts.
I like in particular Montaigne’s rejection of the delusion that more laws will lead to better justice. In practice, the contrary will happen. Increased legal complexity tends to generate more costs for everybody involved, but fails to improve the overall results.
Montaigne’s scepticism applies to the quantity and qualities of the laws, and of the people who apply them. He does not see an easy solution, but he realizes that narrow-mindedness and over-complication will not solve the problem. Instead, he calls for simplicity and common sense.
As an example of judicial aberration, Montaigne points to the ancient Roman precept that enables theft victims to reclaim their goods from a third party who has unknowingly purchased them.
Montaigne argues that, if apply literally, such legal precept can bring all trade to a standstill. In practice, it’s impossible for a purchaser of food, tools or horses to know if those have been stolen.
I agree with Montaigne that this particular Roman precept causes vast harm to orderly and peaceful trade, and does little to protect victims of theft.
What is surprising is that courts of justice in all European venues had been applying this questionable precept for eight centuries. The precept had been recorded in the sixth century AD by Justinian in his “Corpus Juris Civilis,” but Justinian had clearly not realised the implications.
Montaigne’s scepticism applied to the law
The same applies to martial laws and regulations, which can lead to injustices when applied literally, without considering the context.
For example, according to ancient Roman law, a general has the right to inflict the death penalty on soldiers who lose their weapons in battle. Montaigne rightly criticizes that, in those cases, the law was not providing for attenuating circumstances.
What if the soldier loses his weapons fortuitously? It could have been an accident, or the result of the enemy’s numerical superiority. In those cases, it doesn’t make any sense to punish soldiers with death, Montaigne argues.
The blind application of customary rules and legal precepts can lead to abusive situations. Montaigne remains sceptical of experts who pretend to have ready-made answers, especially in the field of law.
When it comes to judging human action, we should always employ reason and common sense first. Let us steer away from the literal, automatic application of legal precepts.
Reasons for Montaigne’s scepticism
Montaigne noted that, the deeper we look into legal history, the larger the absurdities we find. For instance, the historian Diodorus Siculus (1st century BC) is retelling us the following about Charondas, a Sicilian king from four centuries earlier.
In order to prevent fights, Charondas had forbidden citizens to carry weapons in public assemblies, threatening them with the death penalty if they failed to comply.
However, one day, Charondas himself forgot to leave his dagger home, and carried it into the public assembly. When he realized his mistake, it was too late to rectify because everyone had seen the dagger.
Charondas was so embarrassed for having violated his own law that he decided to commit suicide. He killed himself by his own hand in order to enforce an exaggerated prohibition.
We can see in retrospective that Charondas’ legislation and its literal interpretation, without any attenuating circumstances, proved counterproductive.
Montaigne proves his point more than sufficiently, leading readers to the right conclusion: Let’s steer away from excess in all matters, in particular from mental rigidity; and let us remain sceptical of rigid solutions and rigid rules.
In practice, rigidity tends to make situations disorderly and unjust. Instead of following blind prescriptions, we should first employ reason and common sense.
Thinking accurately calls for alertness and flexibility, which are the contrary of cruelty and injustice. Let’s rely more on our own perceptions and thinking, rather than on third-party rules that might prove unsuitable to the situation at hand.
If you are interested in applying rational ideas to all kind of situations here and now, I recommend you my book titled “The 10 principles of rational living.”