Michel de Montaigne and moral relativism

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, could 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 drive 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. 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, effort 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 in 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 Basilicata region. He caused severe destruction for Rome, as the soothsayer had predicted, but his own troops were also decimated. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-moral-relativism/