Asher Sisneros

Asher K. Sisneros

Prof. Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Western Civilization Since 1493 

October 21, 2024

The Enlightenment in France gave rise to a philosophy known as materialism, which completely rejected prior Christian norms. Though many thinkers through the Enlightenment retained their faith in God, such as Isaac Newton, the materialists were an exception. Unlike their Christian colleagues who studied the worlds of science and philosophy to better understand the world created by God, the materialists saw God as irrelevant to the world. 

Fundamentally, the materialists rejected any faith in the spiritual realm or a belief in supernatural phenomena.  On a scientific level, they did not see any empirical evidence for the supernatural. And on a philosophical level, this rejection of the supernatural allowed them to reject any divine restraint on the conscience of man. As they argue, since humans do not have a spirit and are purely mechanical animals bound by their impulses, they have no moral accountability. Le Mettrie argued that as animals have no moral accountability for their actions because they are bound by their animalistic instincts to pursue pleasure, humans are bound by their genes and can only act with impulse, therefore rendering them immune from moral criticism. Baron d’Holbach, being a strict determinist, believed all human action is determined by external factors outside of his control. This should not be confused with the idea of providence. According to the Christian doctrine of providence, all things are preordained by God’s will, but individuals still have moral accountability for their actions. Baron d’Holbach, however, made a different argument: that individuals have no accountability for their actions because of external, physical factors. For example, if a person grew angry and murdered someone, d’Holbach would argue they were not morally accountable because their situation caused them to become angry and thus commit murder. But it is the situation, not the murderer, that is responsible for the crime.  

To rationalize this, Helvetius said human nature is neutral. This was directly opposed to the Christian tradition which emphasized humanity’s inherent wickedness because of Adam’s sin and need for salvation in Jesus Christ. This basic presupposition of neutrality is the backbone of this French materialism. Any notion of moral or immoral behavior begs the question, “Who defines what is moral?” This naturally leads to a theistic answer because it begs the question of sovereignty. Sure, some ascribe sovereignty to the proletariat; others, to “nature” or “number,” as the Pythagoreans did. But the strongest and most popular answer has always been a theistic one. This is evident given the massive scope of religions and how they have expanded over the centuries. Historically, sovereignty—and the right to define morality—has always been attributed to some higher power. But the materialists could avoid this dilemma by rejecting the premise of morality as a system binding humanity and embracing a stance of so-called neutrality: that man is neither wicked nor good. 

The philosophical implications of this outlook were tremendous. Whereas the Greeks said that human fulfillment came from exercising reason, and the Christians said it came from glorifying God and serving others, La Mettrie echoed an Epicurean cry and said the pursuit of sensual pleasure is the ultimate virtue. Yes, virtue. In the absence, of a belief in God or any higher power binding the actions of man, and a rejection of man’s tendency towards evil and need for salvation, the materialists embraced a philosophy that sought to maximize short-term pleasure. Whether this is a philosophy worth emulating, I will let the beloved reader decide.