Devin Ens       The Thought and Influence of Voltaire

I

            The legacy of François Marie Arouet, or Voltaire is not only a vast collection of writings, but also a world that has been radically and directly affected by these works and the activities of their author. While Voltaire did not create many of the ideas he professed, his success at disseminating these is unparalleled. He summed up with the most panache of anyone of his day the central issues of the Enlightenment, and rallied with the greatest fervour to see his beliefs tangibly realised.

            This paper will focus on Voltaire’s stances on vital issues, their weight versus the ideas and practices against which they are reactions, and their influence on both 18^th century Europe and the modern West.

 

II

            History

            Voltaire’s interpretation of history, its value, and the best methods for dealing with it, reveal clearly that his first love is literature. The important qualities of an historical work were, for him, character development, drama, and setting.[1] But whereas previous historians may have been loath to give any texture to their descriptions of past civilisations, instead preferring value-laden generalisations (Golden Ages and Dark Ages); and whereas it was rare for one to make the attempt to transcend their setting and beliefs for the sake of better understanding their subjects,[2] Voltaire emphasised that it was vital not just to look at significant events, but also to immerse oneself in the quotidian details of a society, thus understanding the character of the people behind the events.[3] This deliberate identification with other cultures is characteristic of the relativism that the philosophes practised and that influenced their ethical theories.

            Drama aside, Voltaire also stressed the importance of statistics in history.[4] This interest in quantitative analysis of historical data foreshadows the modern social sciences.

Cosmology

Like many of the philosophes, Voltaire was a deist. He believed that, although God was not one to intervene in earthly affairs, such an entity did exist. The scientific revolution had demonstrated that the universe operated according to rational mechanics. “Therefore,” resembling a machine, it must have an engineer behind it.[5] While deist theories about space and time are muddled and confusing for those of us who take modern science for granted (particularly in their dependence on the concept of God),[6] their nascent determinism is very familiar in this age where behaviourism is so popular. Mired in Newtonian causality, Voltaire (echoing John Locke) believed that action is the effect of which the will is the cause. The cause of the will is the effect of environment. The environment is part of the clockwork universe made and wound by God.[7] While this theory brings environment into the discussion of development of personality, it makes people into passive receptacles and cogs in machines.[8]

            Voltaire’s belief in God was partly pragmatic. He recognised the difficulty of maintaining an ethical system without rewards and punishments. The Christian tradition had so long used heaven and hell as motivational factors that it was hard by the 18^th century to imagine morality for its own sake. While just laws would ensure just actions by the general population, Voltaire was not so sure about what could keep the powerful, those who meted out the earthly punishments and rewards, in check. For this reason, he felt better about having a religious person or body (preferably deist) in power.[9]

Morality

Voltaire’s take on what is immoral and what is merely nonconformist, what should be punishable by law and what should be left up to personal preference is among the most progressive theories of his day. It took a very long time for Europeans to develop rational ethical systems. As Voltaire and his contemporaries astutely pointed out, this arrested development  was due largely to the continent’s adherence to Christianity. This is such an important point in regard to the reaction of the deists and liberals, and continues to be such a problem, that I must give it special attention before continuing with the main body of this paper:

----------------

 The problem with religious morality is that it takes as its starting point the Word of God. Right away we have issues. What is God? What is Its word?

            The second question was hotly debated throughout the Reformation. To this day, errors in translation from the original Hebrew documents from which the Bible was compiled remain. To further complicate matters, what is printed has been the subject of so many interpretations that numerous theologians have used the same passages to prove entirely contradictory theses. The main reason for the difficulty of biblical interpretation (and the reason why so few want to take it literally), I propose, is that no faithful Christian wants to admit its fallibility. When reason asserts that some passage of the Bible cannot be true or that it is contradictory to a prior passage, the faith-defence mechanism says, “Oh, that must be symbolic.” Since the Bible is the Word of God (note that the Bible is usually cited as the main evidence of God’s existence, yet the authority of the Bible rests in its being the word of God) and God always reveals truth (note also that we’re using the nature of God to help interpret the document which reveals Its nature), it can never be wrong.

            Once an interpretation has been settled upon, the even deeper problem with religious morality manifests: taking the words of a text, or even the will of a deity as the standard by which good and evil are measured. If the word of God is the definition of goodness, then the word of the king is the definition of law. Moral codes rooted in the authority of their source can make any action moral simply by claiming it: might truly does make right. If God says (as It has been interpreted as saying) that it is a paternal duty to beat one’s wife and children, then it is right to do so. Why? Because God says so. All those who say otherwise are heretics. Since God is all that is holy, then all who go against God are unholy. Not just naughty, certainly not progressive, but unholy. Once someone has committed themselves to the belief that only what God says is good is good, then the only room one has to influence their ethical position is within the bounds of biblical interpretation, and I have just gone through the problems with that. No argument that falls outside the parameters of their faith will be of any use. The ability to judge an argument as valid or invalid was forfeited the moment they accepted God’s fallacious justification, “Because I said so.”

----------------

It is the separating of religious and traditional morals from rational morals that is perhaps the most refreshing part of Voltaire’s extensive commentary. Among the acts that were crimes in his day, he showed that many came down to nothing but nonconformity. Among these were: heresy, which is nothing more than dissenting opinion; suicide, the punishment of which he ridiculed and the right to which fell well within the sensibilities of liberalism, which stresses that one is master of their own body, which brings us to; sexual deviance. While still one to make fun of homosexuals, Voltaire did defend their right to be free from persecution. He understood adultery and bigamy, and like many liberals saw no grounds for outlawing prostitution.[10] His attitude toward incest was exemplified by his relationship with his niece, Mme Denis.[11]

While professing a sort of cultural relativism in regard to social institutions, Voltaire recognised something universal in all cultures’ moral laws. Admitting the social nature of humans, he believed in the universal applicability of those rules conducive to a healthy society -- namely honesty, gratitude and benevolence.[12] Voltaire reveals this distinction in his Philosophical Dictionary entry on Beauty, where he states (equivocating “pretty” beauty with “touching” beauty) that while the physical attributes of people, costumes and colours may be beautiful in one land and hideous in another, acts of love and self-sacrifice are beautiful everywhere.[13]

Law

Voltaire was no orthodox ideologue. Any general moral rules had to be applied in light of the exigencies of a particular place, period and people. Because of this, he felt that, although everyone had a right to education, it would be detrimental to actually educate everyone. While people deserve equal treatment under the law, the status relationships serve society well enough that they ought not to be tampered with.[14] Also, because laws arise in response to local needs, it is okay that some laws do not deal with genuinely moral issues, but rather with merely practical ones. When a law outlives its usefulness, however, that is injustice.[15]

The laws that are morally necessary, deemed Voltaire, are those which protect liberty and property.[16] Vital to his sense of justice are: equality under the law; open and fair trials; regular maximum punishments; and no punishment without proof of guilt. The primary thing to remember in the writing and especially enforcement of laws is that they exist only for the welfare of society. Therefore a crime is only as heinous as its harm to society and justice is only that which is beneficial.[17]

Government

The English parliamentary system so impressed Voltaire that he never seemed to tire of extolling its virtues. What impressed him most was the balance of English power. With the House of Lords representing the nobility and the House of Commons speaking (in theory) for the average citizen, the essentials of society were all represented.[18] The king, in having to give consent for anything to be enacted, provides the wisdom and esteem of monarchy, while parliament’s exclusive power to raise revenues kept the king accountable.

Looking also to Geneva and Holland as models, Voltaire determined that the two best possible types of government are a constitutional monarchy or a republic.[19]

Tolerance

“What is tolerance? It is the natural attribute of humanity. We are all formed of weakness and error: let us pardon reciprocally each other’s folly. That is the first law of nature.” – from the Philosophical Dictionary[20]

After the horrors of religious persecution in Europe, is it any wonder that the issue of tolerance would become an obsession for social critics? While the discoveries of science surely contributed to the deistic move away from Christianity, for Voltaire personally, the more repulsive aspect of the traditional religion was probably the blood it caused to spill.

One of the ironies of religious fighting is that the parties involved are willing to kill each other over their difference of opinion (as if it would prove anything to be true or false) while neither can actually prove their position. This brings us back to one of my points on religious morality: those who dissent from a religious opinion are not just different, but unholy. In Voltaire’s entry “Intolerance” in the Philosophical Dictionary, he mocks the tone of an intolerant Christian preacher who calls “monsters” all those who will not believe his dubious assertions and condemns them to hell in the name of his merciful God.[21]

Beyond the freedom from persecution that Voltaire wished to see, he also advocated freedom of expression. In his Dictionary entry “Liberty of the Press,” he claims that books do not cause trouble, only people do.[22] In keeping with his contemporaries’ faith in reason, he probably felt that the more public discussion, the better. In a free exchange of ideas, those that make the most sense will prevail. The only result of suppression of thought is resentment on the part of the suppressed and backlash when they can take no more.[23]

He also opined in his works on morality that thought is not action and to hold a differing opinion is not an attack on anyone’s person.[24]

 

III

            As stated in the section on law, Voltaire was more of a reformer than a revolutionary. His aim was not to overthrow the powers that be, but to talk some sense into them.[25] He measured his words when the heat was on and ate them when the alternative was a beating.[26] But even so, his writings were consistently inflammatory and he did enjoy the stirs they caused.

            Unlike 20^th century philosophers who tend to stay as abstract as possible and purely academic, Voltaire was very concrete in his propositions, and had no qualms about getting into politics and polemics. He was not above name-calling or hypocrisy, but also championed some very specific causes. In 1762, he rode to the front of a charge demanding that the case of Jean Calas, a Huguenot whom many believed had been wrongly tortured and executed for murder, be reinvestigated and atoned for.[27] At the same time he also championed the cause of the Sirven family, whom he also believed to be wrongly accused of murder. In both cases intolerance of Protestants seemed to be the motive behind the accusations. Voltaire continued to attack unjust arrests and sentencing.[28] In these matters, his early study of law came in handy.

           

Voltaire’s intelligence and humour made him very readable. His dedication and flare for the dramatic made him very noticeable. His wit and flexibility made him long-lived. For these reasons, his views on morality, justice, and tolerance, which were so shocking in his own day, have not only gained widespread attention, but have actually become the modern norm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

 

Bien, David D. The Calas Affair. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960)

 

Gay, Peter. Voltaire’s Politics. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1959)

 

Lanson, Gustave. “The Voltairian Reformation of France” in Voltaire. Ed. William F.

Bottiglia. (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1968)

 

Lauer, Rosemary Z. The Mind of Voltaire. (Westminster, Maryland: The Newman Press,

1961)

 

Roche, Daniel. France in the Enlightenment. Trans. Arthur Goldhammer. (Cambridge,

Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1998)

 

Torrey, Norman L. “Duplicity and Protective Lying” in Voltaire. Ed. William F.

Bottiglia. (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1968)

 

Voltaire. Lettres Philosophiques. Ed. Raymond Naves. (Paris: Garnier Frères, 1964)

 

Voltaire. The Portable Voltaire. Ed. Ben Ray Redman. (Toronto: Penguin Books, 1977)

 

Voltaire. Romans de Voltaire. Ed. Roger Peyrefitte. (Paris: Brodard et Taupin, 1969)

 

Wade, Ira O. The Intellectual Development of Voltaire. (Princeton: Princeton University

Press, 1969)