Nature's law, or only our own?
Are Europe's rules about sex, marriage and shame the demands of nature, or local customs disguised as nature? Diderot uses Tahiti to prise the two apart and ask which is which.
The device of an invented appendix lets Diderot set European morality beside a Tahiti that seems to live without shame, property or Christian marriage, and ask what the difference proves. His two speakers turn every settled question inside out: is monogamy natural or merely habitual, is sexual shame doing anyone good, are jealousy and chastity nature's demands or arrangements a particular society calls nature to protect them? He does not simply crown the islanders; the point is critical, not utopian, forcing the reader to notice how much of what they took for the voice of nature is the accent of home. The Revolution would soon make the questions literal.
- natural law
- morality
- ethics
- marriage
- social norms
- shame
- desire
- human nature
- culture
- cultural relativism
Enter a dialogue
- A person feels shame about desires they were taught were wrong and can't tell if the shame is natural or trained. How would you have them find out?
- Using an idealized Tahiti to judge European morals stacks the deck. Isn't your island a fantasy doing your arguing for you?
- How would you tell a rule that nature really demands from one a society merely calls natural to protect itself?
- If jealousy and sexual shame are only custom, what settled certainties about love and marriage must a reader be ready to lose?
- You question whether monogamy is natural. Doesn't the harm of jealousy and abandoned children argue that some of these rules earn their keep?