on liberty-第22部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！




exercises　over　the　minds　who　are　least　fitted　to　judge　for　themselves；



and　aided　by　the　natural　penalties　which　cannot　be　prevented　from



falling　on　those　who　incur　the　distaste　or　the　contempt　of　those　who



know　them；　let　not　society　pretend　that　it　needs；　besides　all　this；



the　power　to　issue　commands　and　enforce　obedience　in　the　personal



concerns　of　individuals；　in　which；　on　all　principles　of　justice　and



policy；　the　decision　ought　to　rest　with　those　who　are　to　abide　the



consequences。



　　Nor　is　there　anything　which　tends　more　to　discredit　and　frustrate



the　better　means　of　influencing　conduct　than　a　resort　to　the　worse。　If



there　be　among　those　whom　it　is　attempted　to　coerce　into　prudence　or



temperance　any　of　the　material　of　which　vigorous　and　independent



characters　are　made；　they　will　infallibly　rebel　against　the　yoke。　No



such　person　will　ever　feel　that　others　have　a　right　to　control　him



in　his　concerns；　such　as　they　have　to　prevent　him　from　injuring　them



in　theirs；　and　it　easily　comes　to　be　considered　a　mark　of　spirit　and



courage　to　fly　in　the　face　of　such　usurped　authority；　and　do　with



ostentation　the　exact　opposite　of　what　it　enjoins；　as　in　the　fashion



of　grossness　which　succeeded；　in　the　time　of　Charles　II。；　to　the



fanatical　moral　intolerance　of　the　Puritans。　With　respect　to　what　is



said　of　the　necessity　of　protecting　society　from　the　bad　example　set



to　others　by　the　vicious　or　the　self…indulgent；　it　is　true　that　bad



example　may　have　a　pernicious　effect；　especially　the　example　of



doing　wrong　to　others　with　impunity　to　the　wrong…doer。　But　we　are



now　speaking　of　conduct　which；　while　it　does　no　wrong　to　others；　is



supposed　to　do　great　harm　to　the　agent　himself：　and　I　do　not　see　how



those　who　believe　this　can　think　otherwise　than　that　the　example；　on



the　whole；　must　be　more　salutary　than　hurtful；　since；　if　it　displays



the　misconduct；　it　displays　also　the　painful　or　degrading　consequences



which；　if　the　conduct　is　justly　censured；　must　be　supposed　to　be　in



all　or　most　cases　attendant　on　it。



　　But　the　strongest　of　all　the　arguments　against　the　interference　of



the　public　with　purely　personal　conduct　is　that；　when　it　does



interfere；　the　odds　are　that　it　interferes　wrongly；　and　in　the　wrong



place。　On　questions　of　social　morality；　of　duty　to　others；　the　opinion



of　the　public；　that　is；　of　an　overruling　majority；　though　of　wrong；　is



likely　to　be　still　oftener　right；　because　on　such　questions　they　are



only　required　to　judge　of　their　own　interests；　of　the　manner　in



which　some　mode　of　conduct；　if　allowed　to　be　practised；　would　effect



themselves。　But　the　opinion　of　a　similar　majority；　imposed　as　a　law　on



the　minority；　on　questions　of　self…regarding　conduct；　is　quite　as



likely　to　be　wrong　as　right；　for　in　these　cases　public　opinion



means；　at　the　best；　some　people's　opinion　of　what　is　good　or　bad　for



other　people；　while　very　of　it　does　not　even　mean　that；　the　public；



with　the　most　perfect　indifference；　passing　over　the　pleasure　or



convenience　of　those　whose　conduct　they　censure；　and　considering



only　their　own　preference。　There　are　many　who　consider　as　an　injury　to



themselves　any　conduct　which　they　have　a　distaste　for；　and　resent　it



as　an　outrage　to　their　feelings；　as　a　religious　bigot；　when　charged



with　disregarding　the　religious　feelings　of　others；　has　been　known



to　retort　that　they　disregard　his　feelings；　by　persisting　in　their



abominable　worship　or　creed。　But　there　is　no　parity　between　the



feeling　of　a　person　for　his　own　opinion；　and　the　feeling　of　another



who　is　offended　at　his　holding　it；　no　more　than　between　the　desire



of　a　thief　to　take　a　purse；　and　the　desire　of　the　right　owner　to



keep　it。　And　a　person's　taste　is　as　much　his　own　peculiar　concern　as



his　opinion　or　his　purse。　It　is　easy　for　any　one　to　imagine　an　ideal



public　which　leaves　the　freedom　and　choice　of　individuals　in　all



uncertain　matters　undisturbed；　and　only　requires　them　to　abstain



from　modes　of　conduct　which　universal　experience　has　condemned。　But



where　has　there　been　seen　a　public　which　set　any　such　limit　to　its



censorship？　or　when　does　the　public　trouble　itself　about　universal



experience？　In　its　interferences　with　personal　conduct　it　is　seldom



thinking　of　anything　but　the　enormity　of　acting　or　feeling　differently



from　itself；　and　this　standard　of　judgment；　thinly　disguised；　is



held　up　to　mankind　as　the　dictate　of　religion　and　philosophy；　by



nine…tenths　of　all　moralists　and　speculative　writers。　These　teach　that



things　are　right　because　they　are　right；　because　we　feel　them　to　be



so。　They　tell　us　to　search　in　our　own　minds　and　hearts　for　laws　of



conduct　binding　on　ourselves　and　on　all　others。　What　can　the　poor



public　do　but　apply　these　instructions；　and　make　their　own　personal



feelings　of　good　and　evil；　if　they　are　tolerably　unanimous　in　them；



obligatory　on　all　the　world？



　　The　evil　here　pointed　out　is　not　one　which　exists　only　in　theory；



and　it　may　perhaps　be　expected　that　I　should　specify　the　instances



in　which　the　public　of　this　age　and　country　improperly　invests　its　own



preferences　with　the　character　of　moral　laws。　I　am　not　writing　an



essay　on　the　aberrations　of　existing　moral　feeling。　That　is　too



weighty　a　subject　to　be　discussed　parenthetically；　and　by　way　of



illustration。　Yet　examples　are　necessary　to　show　that　the　principle



I　maintain　is　of　serious　and　practical　moment；　and　that　I　am　not



endeavouring　to　erect　a　barrier　against　imaginary　evils。　And　it　is　not



difficult　to　show；　by　abundant　instances；　that　to　extend　the　bounds　of



what　may　be　called　moral　police；　until　it　encroaches　on　the　most



unquestionably　legitimate　liberty　of　the　individual；　is　one　of　the



most　universal　of　all　human　propensities。



　　As　a　first　instance；　consider　the　antipathies　which　men　cherish　on



no　better　grounds　than　that　persons　whose　religious　opinions　are



different　from　theirs　do　not　practise　their　religious　observances；



especially　their　religious　abstinences。　To　cite　a　rather　trivial



example；　nothing　in　the　creed　or　practice　of　Christians　does　more　to



envenom　the　hatred　of　Mahomedans　against　them　than　the　fact　of　their



eating　pork。　There　are　few　acts　which　Christians　and　Europeans



regard　with　more　unaffected　disgust　than　Mussulmans　regard　this



particular　mode　of　satisfying　hunger。　It　is；　in　the　first　place；　an



offence　against　their　religion；　but　this　circumstance　by　no　means



explains　either　the　degree　or　the　kind　of　their　repugnance；　for　wine



also　is　forbidden　by　their　religion；　and　to　partake　of　it　is　by　all



Mussulmans　accounted　wrong；　but　not　disgusting。　Their　aversion　to



the　flesh　of　the　〃unclean　beast〃　is；　on　the　contrary；　of　that　peculiar



character；　resembling　an　instinctive　antipathy；　which　the　idea　of



uncleanness；　when　once　it　thoroughly　sinks　into　the　feelings；　seems



always　to　excite　even　in　those　whose　personal　habits　are　anything



but　scrupulously　cleanly；　and　of　which　the　sentiment　of　religious



impurity；　so　intense　in　the　Hindoos；　is　a　remarkable　example。



Suppose　now　that　in　a　people；　of　whom　the　majority　were　Mussulmans；



that　majority　should　insist　upon　not　permitting　pork　to　be　eaten



within　the　limits　of　the　country。　This　would　be　nothing　new　in



Mahomedan　countries。*　Would　it　be　a　legitimate　exercise　of　the　moral



authority　of　public　opinion？　and　if　not；　why　not？　The　practice　is



really　revolting　to　such　a　public。　They　also　sincerely　think　that　it



is　forbidden　and　abhorred　by　the　Deity。　Neither　could　the



prohibition　be　censured　as　religious　persecution。　It　might　be



religious　in　its　origin；　but　it　would　not　be　persecution　for　religion；



since　nobody's　religion　makes　it　a　duty　to　eat　pork。　The　only



tenable　ground　of　condemnation　would　be　that　with　the　personal



tastes　and　self…regarding　concerns　of　individuals　the　public　has　no



business　to　interfere。







　　*　The　case　of　the　Bombay　Parsees　is　a　curious　instance　in　point。



When　this　industrious　and　enterprising　tribe；　the　descendants　of　the



Persian　fire…worshippers；　flying　from　their　native　country　before



the　Caliphs；　arrived　in　Western　India；　they　were　admitted　to



toleration　by　the　Hindoo　sovereigns；　on　condition　of　not　eating



beef。　When　those　regions　afterwards　fell　under　the　dominion　of



Mahomedan　conquerors；　the　Parsees　obtained　from　them　a　continuance



of　indulgence；　on　condition　of　refraining　from　pork。　What　was　at　first



obedience　to　authority　became　a　second　nature；　and　the　Parsees　to　this



day　abstain　both　from　beef　and　pork。　Though　not　required　by　their



religion；　the　double　abstinence　has　had　time　to　grow　into　a　custom



of　their　tribe；　and　custom；　in　the　East；　is　a　religion。







　　To　come　somewhat　nearer　home：　the　majority　of　Spaniards　consider



it　a　gross　impiety；　offensive　in　the　highest　degree　to　the　Supreme



Being；　to　worship　him　in　any　other　manner　than　the　Roman　Catholic；　and



no　other　public　worship　is　lawful　on　Spanish　soil。　The　people　of　all



Southern　Europe　look　upon　a　married　clergy　as　not　only　irreligious；



but　unchaste；　indecent；　gross；　disgusting。　What　do　Protestants　think



of　these　perfectly　sincere　feelings；　and　of　the　attempt　to　enforce



them　against　non…Catholics？　Yet；　if　mankind　are　justified　in



interfering　with　each　other's　liberty　in　things　which　do　not　concern



the　interests　of　others；　on　what　principle　is　it　possible　consistently



to　exclude　these　cases？　or　who　can　blame　people　for　desiring　to



suppress　what　they　regard　as　a　scandal　in　the　sight　of　God　and　man？　No



stronger　case　can　be　shown　for　prohibiting　anything　which　is



regarded　as　a　personal　immorality；　than　is　made　out　for　suppressing



these　practices　in　the　eyes　of　those　who　regard　them　as　impieties；　and



unless　we　are　willing　to　adopt　the　logic　of　persecutors；　and