The Utility of Vice

Of the Useful and the Honorable examines the relationship between relativistic ethicality and absolute morality. Montaigne offers a series of observations which introduce the concept of the inherent utility of vice to the reader before providing his own humanistic commentary. The first is that Our structure, both public and private, is full of imperfection. But there is nothing useless in Nature, not even uselessness itself. Montaigne then links these ideas. Nothing has made its way into this universe that does not hold a proper place in it. Through these three sentences Montaigne has shared with the reader the forceful center of his argument; that man is imperfect, that imperfection is natural, and that because this imperfection is natural it is right to exist and holds a proper place in society. Let us put aside the macro level interpretation of this piece for a moment. Our structure, both public and private, is full of imperfection. But there is nothing useless in Nature, not even uselessness itself. This section holds significance because of the categorization of structure, both public and private as a subset of nature. To recognize societal frameworks and other human creations as subservient to Nature is a quintessential humanist view. Evolution shapes our interpersonal relationships as raging rivers once shaped and reshaped our lands to their whims. But Montaigne also relegates humans themselves to the position of mere subjects to Nature. Our imperfect private structure is implied to be administrated by, and therefore inferior to, Nature. Our personal thoughts, feelings, motivations, dreams, goals, emotions. Montaigne implies that these ephemeral and transcendental concepts fall under the auspices of Nature, of Fortune. The next statement serves to reconcile and soften this idea with the reader: Nothing has made its way into this universe that does not hold a proper place in it. Before elaborating on the proper place of human imperfections Montaigne clarifies that he is speaking specifically on negative human qualities, Ambition, jealousy, envy, vengeance and that these qualities are so ubiquitous to the human condition that we can even recognize the same bestial emotions when they manifest in animals, so great is our insight into their workings. Montaigne argues as well that cruelty is within all of us, even children feel it before relaying a schadenfreude laden quote from Lucretius.

Tis sweet, when the sea is high and winds are driving, To watch from shore anothers anguished striving.

Whoever should remove the seeds of these qualities from man would destroy the fundamental conditions of our life. In this sentence Montaigne equates these sickly qualities with pillars of humanity; their removal would shatter the existing society. There appear to be several layers to this statement. The first response of the reader may be that of shock. The idea that negative qualities such as avarice or vengeance should be allowed to remain, that we

shouldnt work towards their abolition for the betterment of all appe ars counterintuitive for the quintessential humanist writer. But returning to the opening paragraph we see that Montaigne has already stated, Nothing has made its way into this universe that does not hold a proper place in it. So these qualities, however sickly they may be, must serve a purpose in Montaignes opinion. The next sentence informs the reader as to that purpose; Likewise in every government there are necessary offices which are not only abject but also vicious . Ah, so he is positing that negative human qualities are useful in the science of governance. If the reader knows of Montaignes experience in politics this concept takes on new importance, as will be demonstrated later. Vices find their place in [necessary governmental offices] and are employed for sewing our society together, as are poisons for the preservation of our health. Once again we are offered the concept that negative qualities are necessary yet in this example Montaigne touches upon a new idea as well. as are poisons for the preservation of our health is the crucial section here, as Montaigne is clearly advocating for a healthy balance of the negative yet necessary qualities. Just as that which heals can kill in too large a quantity Montaigne is suggesting that, in excess, the vices he proposes as critical to governance can lead to ruin. Montaignes two terms as mayor of Bordeaux exposed him to the world of politics and the second paragraph takes on new meaning if this fact is acknowledged. This passage must be viewed in historical context to be fully appreciated; If [vices] become excusable, inasmuch as we need them and the common necessity effaces their true quality, we still must let this part be played by the more vigorous and less fearful citizens, who will sacrifice their honor and their conscience, as those ancients sacrificed their life, for the good of their country. Montaigne presents the idea that even if such negative qualities are necessary for governance that those who embrace them sacrifice their honor and their conscience for the good of their country. Before Montaigne simply presented the idea of these vices being necessary, but now he shows his hand and states that to embrace vice in order to rule effectively is to throw away your honor and to disregard your conscience. Moreover, he equates the sacrifice of honor and conscience to the sacrifice of life itself in his passing reference of the ancients. Montaigne was exposed to the dirty world of politics in his four years as mayor of Bordeaux, and it is ostensibly this experience which led him to such observations. The next section of the passage strengthens this postulation. We who are weaker, let us take parts that are both easier and less hazardous. Montaigne immutably seats himself with those who are weaker, those who refuse to embrace vice or sacrifice their honor for the greater good. He continues; The public welfare requires that a man betray and lie and massacre; let us resign this commission to more obedient and suppler people. Furthermore, in finishing his line of thought in this manner Montaigne appears almost dismissive to those who choose to disregard honor for the public welfare. Especially with the

connotations of the word supple. Supple implies malleability, mutability, that whatever is described as such is easy to change or manipulate. Paired with obedient it appears on cursory reading that Montaigne was insinuating that those who forgo honor and conscience betray and lie and massacre because of an intellectual deficit rather than a conscious flaunting of morality. However, obedient could also be read to mean obedient at all costs to the public welfare, even insofar as to sacrifice life, conscience and honor. Additionally, supple could be interpreted to mean flexible in regards to morality rather than malleable and easy to sway . Montaigne seems to have constructed his ending sentence so carefully that his entire message becomes ambiguous. He repeatedly stresses the importance of vice in governance, yet emphasizes both balance and the sacrifice necessary to utilize it. He calls himself weaker than those who give up their morality, yet he then surreptitiously insults those who do. It is up to the reader to decide whether he is a proponent of moral relativism or ethical absolutism. What is not up for debate is Montaignes ability to construct a brilliantly ambiguous passage describing moral ambiguity.