were pioneer establishers of newfound way to judge humans’ actions. That being said, they did not use this process of judgment when living their own lives. The question is whether or not their philosophies can be deemed worth of praise if they did not apply it to their lives. On the case of Voltaire, he was known as a brilliant, witty, artistic, and funny man.
Nevertheless, these traits alone did nothing to stop him from committing many actions in his life that were considered highly immoral. Being a deist, he continually criticized the Catholic Church for being corrupt, yet he had affairs, cheated the French national lottery, and had a secret relationship with his niece. One could make an argument and say that everyone makes mistakes, but being a champion for the idea that humans are naturally good, is a problem. Additionally, he created ways for government and in succession, society to improve with his ideas in political philosophy. This was a problem because in his argument that people were inherently good he also states that society is the cause for people to, in essence, …show more content…
sin. The issue with Rousseau is much more severe because instead of making some forgivable mistakes like Voltaire, his lifestyle was filled with immorality. From abandoning children in orphanages to abandoning his many lovers, Rousseau lived a life completely different than what his philosophies told others to do. He even wrote a book on how important it was to give children an education, while many of his sons and daughters were living in unkempt orphanages. His philosophy stated that humans were good at the beginning of time and modern day humans should strive to reach back to their ancestors. These ancestors were pure and they relished the simplistic wonders of nature that were family, beauty in the world around, and love. On another side of the spectrum, his personal life even contradicts his brilliant political masterpiece, The Social Contract. However, after everything that he had done, he catalogued all of his sins in an autobiography and tried to explain himself. Common knowledge dictates that in a position of great influence one must apply what he says to his own life before expecting others to apply it to their own.
However, the job of philosopher requires great intellect and brainpower, which both Voltaire and Rousseau had. Their contributions to society greatly outweighed their reductions. For example, think of modern politicians and all of the personal problems they possess. Nevertheless, many that have had private issues go on to influence nations for the better. Therefore, to properly appreciate one’s lifework it is helpful to know how he or she spent his or her personal life, but it does not warrant the complete distrust of someone’s work in almost every case. Every person on this earth has made mistakes that they regret and wish they could make right. Why should these men be discredited because of their sinful
lifestyle? People will always be pointing fingers away from themselves to try to focus on other people’s mistakes. Now, if one’s lifework happens to be as influential and important as Voltaire’s and Rousseau, then one should expect a higher amount of scrutiny. Unless a moral abomination has been done, such as something on the caliber of planned murder, a person’s work should never be completely discredited. Thus, Voltaire and Rousseau should have the blessing of having their works divorced from their immoral character.