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
- You say civilisation slipped an artificial man inside the natural one and the two have fought inside us ever since. Who profits from keeping that war going?
- Your Tahitian host says that if a land could feed more people than it has, Tahitian customs beat European ones. Why should counting mouths decide morals?
- Wherever a thing is forbidden, people are tempted to do it, and punishments grow harsher. Do bans ever make a society more virtuous?
- Your book says a poor man feels no remorse and a sick woman no shame. Do poverty and illness reveal our nature or only weaken our training?
- Divine commands harden over time into civil laws, and civil laws take on a sacred air. Why does each strengthen the other's hold on people?