Interview with a father with his Children: Or The Danger of Putting Oneself above the Law

Though written around 1758–1759, Interview of a Father with His Children (also translated as "conversation" or "dialogue" did not reach the public until 1773, when it was published in Grimm’s private Correspondance littéraire. The piece is a moral dialogue often regarded as semi-autobiographical: it stages an evening discussion in the home of a certain “Father” who strongly resembles Diderot’s own late father, Didier Diderot (a respectable craftsman from Langres who died in 1759). This historical linkage gives the work a poignant backdrop. Diderot wrote it as a sort of homage to paternal wisdom and as a vehicle to explore ethical dilemmas in an intimate family setting. In 1773 the work appeared in a Swiss edition paired with poetic idylls by the Swiss writer Gessner – a juxtaposition that underscored its genre as a conte moral (moral tale). For that occasion, Diderot handed the manuscript to Jacques-Henri Meister, Grimm’s successor, noting that he had “just finished” it along with another story (The Two Friends of Bourbonne). Biographically, this timing is suggestive: by the early 1770s Diderot had become reflective about personal morality and the social order, and perhaps nostalgic about his upbringing. The dialogue’s familial cast (a father, his grown children – including a character representing Diderot himself as “the son,” an abbé brother, and a sister – plus a family friend who is a doctor) mirrors Diderot’s own family composition. The work thus blends personal memory with philosophical inquiry. In this thoughtful dialogue, a series of ethical conundrums is put forth, all revolving around the conflict between the strict letter of the law and the dictates of conscience or compassion. The subtitle “On the danger of placing oneself above the laws” hints at the central question: should individuals ever break society’s laws if they feel those laws are unjust or inhumane? The father figure guides the conversation, presenting cases such as: Should a physician save the life of a convicted criminal suffering an illness, even if curing him means he will be executed? Through five or six such anecdotes, Diderot examines extreme scenarios in which legal duty clashes with moral intuition. The children and the doctor offer different viewpoints, and the father responds, drawing out the implications. Themes of justice, mercy, and civil disobedience emerge powerfully. Diderot, speaking often through the father and sometimes through the passionate “son,” leans toward the position that rigid adherence to bad laws is folly – at one point the dialogue declares, “Sometimes the law has no common sense,” and that natural justice or the “law of nature” stands above transient human statutes. This was a bold, almost proto-revolutionary sentiment for its time. The philosophical ideas align with Enlightenment critiques of tyranny: laws derive their legitimacy from reason and the common good, and when they fail that standard, virtuous people are right to question them. There is an “extremist” stance voiced that nature’s eternal laws (such as compassion or equity) are superior to any human legal code. Yet Diderot balances the debate; he presents the danger that individuals might arrogate too much to themselves in judging laws, potentially causing chaos – hence the nuanced title warning of the danger in setting oneself above the law.