# On Voltaire and "Laws against morals" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 15, 2007, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-voltaire-and-laws-against-morals/404224 "2007-05-15T19:26:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Zoomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/bbce88/32.png) [@Zoomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoomer)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2007, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-voltaire-and-laws-against-morals/404224/1 "2007-05-15T19:26:24Z")
Voltaire, writing on the general subject of cuissage (The right of first night), says the following: [link](http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/Voltaire0265/Works/0060-04_Bk.html#hd_lf060-04_head_106) > [@](#): > > I call a public law which deprives me of my property, which takes away my wife and gives her to another, a law against morals; and I am certain that such a law is impossible. Some travellers maintain that in Lapland husbands, out of politeness, make an offer of their wives. Out of still greater politeness, I believe them; but I nevertheless assert, that they never found this rule of good manners in the legal code of Lapland, any more than in the constitutions of Germany, in the ordinances of the king of France, or in the “Statutes at Large” of England, any positive law, adjudging the right of cuissage to the barons. Absurd and barbarous laws may be found everywhere; formal laws against morals nowhere. It seems to me (the avg. Joe) that he is essentially saying that it is impossible to have a law which mandates an act that people object to on moral grounds. Or perhaps he means the inverse, summarized as “You can’t legislate morality”. Is/was he correct? Do formal “laws against morals” not exist? If not, under what circumstances _could_ they exist? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2007, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-voltaire-and-laws-against-morals/404224/2 "2007-05-16T00:39:39Z")
[The law in question never existed,](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_181.html) at any rate. > [@Zoomer](#): > > It seems to me (the avg. Joe) that he is essentially saying that it is impossible to have a law which mandates an act that people object to on moral grounds. If he says that, he’s wrong. Many people object to military service on moral grounds. Nevertheless, many countries have draft laws, with or without exceptions for “conscientious objectors.” It might or might not be just, but it is definitely not impossible. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2007, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-voltaire-and-laws-against-morals/404224/3 "2007-05-16T18:23:58Z")
[QUOTE=Zoomer] Is/was he correct? Do formal “laws against morals” not exist? If not, under what circumstances _could_ they exist? [/QUOTE] He’s in a bit of a pickle if he defines his wife as his property, and then objects to a law on moral grounds. He’s in another pickle if he believes that laws which allow for the forfeiture of property are impossible. Taxes, for example, would cease to exist. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2007, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-voltaire-and-laws-against-morals/404224/4 "2007-05-16T19:11:56Z")
The arrest of people for drug offenses is immoral, yet it happens all the time, particularly if you are of the wrong color and have drugs. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2007, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-voltaire-and-laws-against-morals/404224/5 "2007-05-16T19:16:36Z")
One obvious problem here is that a state can have only one law for all, but moral standards are things about which people often disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Zoomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/bbce88/32.png) [@Zoomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoomer)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2007, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-voltaire-and-laws-against-morals/404224/6 "2007-05-16T21:37:14Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > The law in question never existed, at any rate. Um … yeah … I know. I think that this was the main point that Voltaire was trying to get across in the paper from 1762 that I linked to. Cecil even refers to this in his article. But, the question I am trying to pose (very badly, I suspect), has to do with Voltaire’s use of the phrase “laws against morals” and his conviction that none do or in fact _could_ exist. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > If he says that, he’s wrong. Many people object to military service on moral grounds. Nevertheless, many countries have draft laws, with or without exceptions for “conscientious objectors.” It might or might not be just, but it is definitely not impossible. > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > He’s in another pickle if he believes that laws which allow for the forfeiture of property are impossible. Taxes, for example, would cease to exist. These were the first counter-examples that I thought of as well. But, certainly, I think, Voltaire in 1762 knew about both conscription and taxes. This leads me to believe that this was not the kind of thing he was refering to. So, I guess my question could be better phrased as: What the heck did Voltaire mean when he says “Laws against morals” and why was he so sure that it was impossible to have one? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2007, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-voltaire-and-laws-against-morals/404224/7 "2007-05-16T22:18:20Z")
He defines “a law against morals” in the text, and you quoted his definition. “I call a public law which deprives me of my property, which takes away my wife and gives her to another, a law against morals” He’s saying that such laws don’t exist, and in those places where the practice occurs or occured (Lappland, Medieval Europe, the Roman Empire, Asia), it’s due not to law but to custom. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2007, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-voltaire-and-laws-against-morals/404224/8 "2007-05-16T22:22:06Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] He’s saying that such laws don’t exist, and in those places where the practice occurs or occured (Lappland, Medieval Europe, the Roman Empire, Asia), it’s due not to law but to custom. [/QUOTE] At some levels of civilization there is no distinction between law and custom. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2007, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-voltaire-and-laws-against-morals/404224/9 "2007-05-16T23:12:20Z")
[QUOTE=Zoomer] So, I guess my question could be better phrased as: What the heck did Voltaire mean when he says “Laws against morals” and why was he so sure that it was impossible to have one? [/QUOTE] I have no idea. His example is unambiguous. If he was speaking metaphorically, it is not apparent in the example provided, or in the text linked. Perhaps an error in translation? No law is “impossible.” All it takes is for a legislative body to enact it. Said law may be found unenforceable, or unconstitutional, or inherently illogical, but not impossible. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2007, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-voltaire-and-laws-against-morals/404224/10 "2007-05-17T14:20:16Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] At some levels of civilization there is no distinction between law and custom. [/QUOTE] That’s why he’s talking about places that are at least “semi-civilized”…places that have states that make statutory law. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2007, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-voltaire-and-laws-against-morals/404224/11 "2007-05-17T14:22:03Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal] Perhaps an error in translation? No law is “impossible.” All it takes is for a legislative body to enact it. Said law may be found unenforceable, or unconstitutional, or inherently illogical, but not impossible. [/QUOTE] I think he means that it’s impossible because no legislature ever would enact such a law; that actually enacting a law like that would go against human nature. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2007, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-voltaire-and-laws-against-morals/404224/12 "2007-05-17T17:20:54Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] I think he means that it’s impossible because no legislature ever would enact such a law; that actually enacting a law like that would go against human nature. [/QUOTE] People enact laws that go against human nature all the time. They tend to be difficult to enforce, but they exist. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2007, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-voltaire-and-laws-against-morals/404224/13 "2007-05-17T17:25:45Z")
Don’t laws by definition go against human nature? If it is natural for us to do, wouldn’t we just do it without the necessity of creating guidelines and enforcing them by threat of violence? I think Voltaire is completely wrong. All laws by definition deprive us of something. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2007, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-voltaire-and-laws-against-morals/404224/14 "2007-05-17T20:54:25Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] I think he means that it’s impossible because no legislature ever would enact such a law; that actually enacting a law like that would go against human nature. [/QUOTE] As it turns out, he was wrong. Slavery was legal in the United States. Women were taken from their husbands. Not, ostensibly, for the purpose of sexual intercourse, although clearly that happened often enough. They were considered to be property, and were treated as such. The disposition of their fates was determined with absolutely no consideration of their rights as human beings. ---
**Author:** ![Zoomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/bbce88/32.png) [@Zoomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoomer)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2007, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-voltaire-and-laws-against-morals/404224/15 "2007-05-18T02:12:21Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal] As it turns out, he was wrong. Slavery was legal in the United States. Women were taken from their husbands. Not, ostensibly, for the purpose of sexual intercourse, although clearly that happened often enough. They were considered to be property, and were treated as such. The disposition of their fates was determined with absolutely no consideration of their rights as human beings. [/QUOTE] But, I don’t think that slavery was ever _mandated_ by law. A law was eventually made which made it illegal but, no one was forced, by law, to have slaves. (Is their a distinction between the type of law that prohibits something and a law which mandates something?) ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2007, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-voltaire-and-laws-against-morals/404224/16 "2007-05-18T04:33:13Z")
[QUOTE=Zoomer] But, I don’t think that slavery was ever _mandated_ by law. A law was eventually made which made it illegal but, no one was forced, by law, to have slaves. (Is their a distinction between the type of law that prohibits something and a law which mandates something?) [/QUOTE] Was Voltaire complaining that the law _allowed this theft of property, or demanded_ it? At any rate, the Supreme Court sanctioned slavery in [Dred Scott v. Sandford,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford) a decision that stood until overturned by constitutional amendment. Sure sounds like the law of the land to me. As do the [Virgina Slave Codes.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_codes) Perhaps even the [New England Articles of Confederation.](http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/colonies_of_ne_1643.html) > [@](#): > > It is also agreed that if any servant run away from his master into any other of these confederated Jurisdictions, that in such case, upon the ceritficate of one magistrate in the Jurisdiction out of which the said servant fled, or upon other due proof; the said servant shall be delivered, either to his master, or any other that pursues and brings such certificate or proof. ---
**Author:** ![jovan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/0ea827/32.png) [@jovan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jovan)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2007, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-voltaire-and-laws-against-morals/404224/17 "2007-05-18T08:25:45Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal] Perhaps an error in translation? [/QUOTE] Yes, that’s exactly what it is. In the [original text](http://www.voltaire-integral.com/Html/18/cuissage.htm), it says: > [@](#): > > J’appelle loi contre les moeurs une loi publique qui me prive de mon bien, qui m’ôte ma femme pour la donner à un autre; et je dis que la chose est impossible. I’ve underlined the important word: _moeurs_. “Morals” is a poor translation, the closest English word is “mores”, however, while they are cognates, they don’t necessarily match up perfectly. There are two definitions for this word: one general, the other specific. The general definition is that _moeurs_ signifies “a set of behaviours specific to a group and considered with respect to a collective moral”. The word “collective” is important. There are people who argue that pedophilia is actually a good thing. They argue that it is not immoral to have sexual relations with a 10 year-old child. However, the social norms are so overwhelmingly against pedophilia that there is no doubt that it is against _moeurs_. The term is also used to talk about animal behaviour. In this sense, _moeurs_ are much more basic than morals. Something that is against _moeurs_ can be thought of as “against nature”. The second definition is strictly sexual. For instance, in Montreal, the section of the police that deals with prostitution and such is called _l’escouade des moeurs_ (_moeurs_ squad). In this sense, _moeurs_ can be defined as “sexual behaviour taken with respect to social norms”. If you read the whole text, it is clear that Voltaire’s examples all pertain with sexual behaviour. The French text is actually somewhat cruder than the English translation. However, the topic of the entry has to be taken into context, also. There is a very important expression in his text: > [@](#): > > It is undoubted that some abbots and bishops enjoyed this privilege in their quality of temporal lords, and it is not very long since that these prelates compounded their prerogative for acknowledgments in money, to which they have just as much right as to the virginity of the girls. > > But let it be well remarked that this excess of tyranny was never sanctioned by any public law. If a lord or a prelate had cited before a regular tribunal a girl affianced to one of his vassals, in claim of her quit-rent, he would doubtless have lost his cause and costs. He acknowledges dictatorial decrees, but to him, these are not laws, at least, not public laws. He stresses this point earlier, by example: > [@](#): > > But if the Roman emperors attained not this right by a senatus-consultum, duly founded upon a plebiscitum, it is very likely that they fully enjoyed it by the courtesy of the ladies. He is simply stating that you could never pass a law, _publicly_, that went against social mores. If you want to know exactly what he means, you need to turn to the [entry on laws](http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/v/voltaire/dictionary/chapter301.html). He compares Fu Xi’s laws with Old Testament commandements, while he finds in the ancient Chinese laws “nothing but what is mild, useful and amiable”, he finds the Hebrew codes barbaric: > [@](#): > > It appears upon a comparison of the code of the Chinese with that of the Hebrews, that laws naturally follow the manners of the people who make them. If vultures and doves had laws, they would undoubtedly be of a very different character. Here “manners” is of course, _moeurs_ in the original text. Laws that allowed slavery were not against mores; slavery was acceptable at the time. However, you could never pass such a law in America nowadays: mores have changed and slavery is out. There is no near-universal opposition to taxes. 60 years ago, it was not considered against social norms to go to war, that is why consciption laws could be passed. The moral position of individuals is irrelevent to his argument because he’s talking about social norms.