“[The law] should be adopted in such a manner to the people for whom they are made, as to render it very unlikely for those of one nation to be proper for another.”
- Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu, Book I 3.12
“Rational Drug Design” is a term coined by pharmacologists to illustrate the process of medication construction in relation to a preexisting biological disorder. Wholly pragmatic, this process seeks to solve the genetic discrepancies of a patient, not by “squaring the circle” but by fashioning the chemical solution to fit the problem. The political philosophers at the time of the Enlightenment spent much of their time attempting to unlock the core of human nature in order to build a secure system of government and greatest freedom for its subjects.
Writing in Christian France during the Enlightenment, Charles de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu may have admittedly oversold the concept of the Divine in an attempt to appease the authorities (although one could argue that the issuing of a political philosophy intended to weaken the power of the government is hardly an act of “appeasement”). In fact, when dealing with the subject of the Divine, Montesquieu references, not holy scripture or the saints, but instead the pre-Christian philosopher Plutarch. He uses this testimonial to argue that even God (should he exist) would be locked in his understanding of “justice.” Even the laws of physics, Montesquieu argues, are directly tied to a concept of Divinity, neither of which can be removed or altered in the slightest (I 1.6). Laws, and therefore, justice are “necessary relations derived from the nature of things” (I 1.1). Therefore, whether or not Montesquieu truly is a Deist appears to be irrelevant to his philosophy. While there is no justice in the state of nature (or no natural justice), there certainly exists a need for justice. Thus, both the atheist and the Christian can live under the same laws with no discrepancies in their worldviews.
Human nature, according to Montesquieu and in direct compliance with Hobbesian philosophy, is primarily one oriented around self-preservation. Qualities like fear serve to fuel this goal, however, unlike Hobbes, Montesquieu recognizes that fear, as a predominant trait of man in a state of nature, could never have allowed for the creation of modern society, as it would be constantly wracked with permanent struggle between individuals (I 2.7). Indeed, the political state of man comes after society has been formed, which means that although fear may be present in the hearts of man, it certainly does not take the definitive role that Hobbes envisioned. The desire for superiority, for example, comes out of a societal, or artificial, nature. One can only wonder how complete his philosophy would have been had he access to current studies in evolutionary psychology. The Spanish monk and political philosopher Francisco de Vitoria would have disagreed with Montesquieu on the natural state of the political life. Like Hobbes, he viewed the political life of man as intrinsically natural. Society is viewed as a natural, not an established, aspect of human interaction.
With regards to the establishment of governmental powers, Vitoria would find much to agree with in Book 24 of The Spirit of the Laws as Montesquieu quickly draws a connection between the Catholic faith and the supreme form of government: a monarchy (XXIV 5). And although both authors would unite in criticizing Bayle’s claim that it is better to have no religion than a false one, Montesquieu separates from his phantasmic counterpart in arguing that piety can indeed be problematic with regards to civil society. Although he claims to “have never…[made] the interests of religion submit to those of a political nature” (XXIV 1.4), Montesquieu seems to spend the entirely of the subsequent book hoping to transform religion into a more mediocre shadow of its current form. While religion may help rival and check a despot, a Monarchy brings with it an inherent virtue that balances the power of the king. Once again, we can see that not all combinations of government and religion are compatible. This appears to be the most important dividing line between the two philosophers as Montesquieu recognizes that human nature will not be deterred by a set of religious code, but rather but a common law.
In Vitoria’s worldview, material good, or gain, is not the equivalent of the common good. Consequently, to sacrifice the spiritual direction of a society simply to fulfill the values of utilitarianism would be ill advised. One can see the discrepancies of their philosophies once the interaction of nations on the international realm comes into question. Montesquieu argues that governments have not only a right, but also a duty, to defend their nations. War is not meant for policing other nations or vengeance, therefore is an irrational risk if conducted for any reason other than self-preservation. Vitoria would find this view almost offensive. For the Spanish friar, the only focus is a spiritual one and therefore governmental powers are simply temporary. As the great theologian Thomas Aquinas would understand it, all citizens are merely stewards of their land, not owners. Therefore all borders are illusory and international law is truly just Natural Law on a broader scale. Christians are compelled to war only when innocents are being victimized in foreign lands. The motivation for this claim stems directly from the preaching of Christ, not rationality or necessity as Montesquieu would have undoubtedly preferred.
The worldview that Vitoria embellishes upon is the Thomistic doctrine of Catholicism laid down by Aquinas in his Summa Theologica. In this compendium, Aquinas laid out a hierarchy of differing laws, the greatest of which is the Divine Posited Law, law revealed by God through revelation. Indeed, his religiocentrism (or to be generous, his strong faith) is revealed in his opinion that Christian missionaries should be allowed into other nations to preach the true religion while the proselytizers of other faiths are commanded to remain outside Christian borders. Surely, Montesquieu would not agree or accept the favoring of one religion over another simply because it is considered “true” by its adherents. Montesquieu actively seeks to find the best applicable religion to infuse into the state as we see in Book 24, Chapter 6. This is important, because he argues that the veracity of a religion does not determine its place in the government; not all nations can adhere to the same moral code. Self-defense however, is universal.
This primary focus on the metaphysical is not unique to the Thomistic doctrine by any means. The famous Koranic “verse of the sword” reads thus: “slay the idolaters wheresoever’s you find them, and take them captive or besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every place (9.3-14). Therefore, we see the root problem with introducing religious ordinance into the state is its positive postulation of “Divine Law.” We remember that even though Montesquieu might be a Deist, he easily disagrees with the imposition of any Divine Law into governmental powers, especially when they serve to disrupt the social well-being as he draws a line between the nature of the government and the principle of its action (III 1).
To his credit, Vitoria is known to be very critical of the church’s intrinsic “right” to conquer and rule heathen nations simply because their religion is incorrect. Yet, Vitoria still upholds the veracity of the Catholic religion and recommends the exporting of missionaries to “heathen” cultures as long as they remained peaceful. One could easily call to mind the most famous work of Vitoria, On the American Indians, a treatise that condemned the violent ambitions of Spanish colonizers and the actions taken towards the natives in America. This view seems remarkably contradictory, however, to Vitoria’s earlier claims that the “material good” must not interfere with the spiritual warfare for souls. This author would argue that such are the inconsistencies with his worldview. Vitoria is clearly more cautious in advancing war while Montesquieu views war as a utilitarian endeavor as we remember from earlier in the essay.
When combined with the concept of a Divine Posited Law, society then becomes centered on the conscience of man and directed towards the salvation of the soul, as opposed to the regulations and restrictions placed on human nature, as Hobbes would prefer. In the view of Vitoria and Aquinas, Divine Law safeguards against Natural Law because fallen human nature is intrinsically self-centered. Since the natural inclination for men is self-preservation, he must be constantly reminded that there are more important aspects to Christian life than avoiding death.
The separation of religion, or at least the diminution in fervor among the faithful, is part of Montesquieu’s pragmatic design of government using human nature as his foundation. Vitoria’s misunderstanding of human nature and emphasis on the Divine Law forces him to irrationally design the political sphere as it pertains to multiple nations. A good pharmacologist, Vitoria would not make.
No comments:
Post a Comment