Geoffrey T. Roche

Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, in Dialectic of Enlightenment [Dialektik der Aufklärung, first published in 1944], argue that Donatien-Alphonse-François, the Marquis de Sade (1740–1814), and Friedrich Nietzsche have brought the Enlightenment project of grounding morality in reason to an end. For Adorno and Horkheimer, Sade has revealed philosophy’s moral impotency, in particular “the impossibility of deriving from reason any fundamental argument against murder [...].”1 Marcel Hénaff, Susan Neiman, and Annie Le Brun have similarly suggested that Sade has demonstrated that morality is no more philosophically justified than immorality.2 There is no doubt that there is much discussion of moral philosophy in Sade’s surviving works. But are these extraordinary claims of Sade’s sceptical powers justified? To answer this question, this paper sets out to identify the moral and meta- ethical claims made in Sade’s works, and to assess his arguments for those claims.

Scholars have traditionally taken the Marquis de Sade to be a straightforward advocate of immoral hedonism. Without rejecting outright this view, I argue that Sade also presents an insightful theory of the psychology of pleasure, placing him amongst the more insightful psychological thinkers of the late 18th century. This paper outlines Sade’s description of the immoral will, in particular his account of how an agent can come to enjoy the humiliation, torture and murder of others. I argue for the following claims: firstly, that Sade, perhaps despite himself, suggests that the sadistic will is pathological; secondly, that Sade’s work gives a far less flattering view of the sadistic will than is commonly supposed.