Introduction

One usually does not characterize an anthropological quotation by Michel de Montaigne as having much in comparison with Kantian cosmopolitanism. Scholars of both Montaigne and Kant would suggest that the cultural pluralism of Montaigne's theory directly conflicts with the legal cosmopolitanism of Kant. However, this assumption not only neglects some similarities between Montaigne and Kant, but also exemplifies the general confusion regarding what Kant's cosmopolitan law is meant to achieve. In comparison to Kant, Montaigne suggests that human reason is a characteristic found universally in all forms of social morality. In relation to Montaigne, Kant maintains the empirical reality that human diversity exists, but that the bounded surface of the earth forces us into consistent interaction and therefore creates a philosophical need for practical reason in the formation of universal ethical principles and cosmopolitan law. Where Kant and Montaigne differ is not in regard to the fact that human reason is the basis for all morality or with the fact that diversity exists, but in regard to whether human reason can ever reconcile our various differences under some form of cosmopolitan law. For Montaigne, the diversity of opinion is infinite, suggesting that universal cosmopolitan principles cannot capture all the complexities of various cultural perspectives.