on liberty-第26章

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！




creatures；　because　for　none　of　them　is　it　for　the　good　of　mankind　that



he　be　held　accountable　to　them。



　　The　distinction　between　the　loss　of　consideration　which　a　person　may



rightly　incur　by　defect　of　prudence　or　of　personal　dignity；　and　the



reprobation　which　is　due　to　him　for　an　offence　against　the　rights　of



others；　is　not　a　merely　nominal　distinction。　It　makes　a　vast



difference　both　in　our　feelings　and　in　our　conduct　towards　him　whether



he　displeases　us　in　things　in　which　we　think　we　have　a　right　to



control　him；　or　in　things　in　which　we　know　that　we　have　not。　If　he



displeases　us；　we　may　express　our　distaste；　and　we　may　stand　aloof



from　a　person　as　well　as　from　a　thing　that　displeases　us；　but　we　shall



not　therefore　feel　called　on　to　make　his　life　uncomfortable。　We



shall　reflect　that　he　already　bears；　or　will　bear；　the　whole　penalty



of　his　error；　if　he　spoils　his　life　by　mismanagement；　we　shall　not；



for　that　reason；　desire　to　spoil　it　still　further：　instead　of



wishing　to　punish　him；　we　shall　rather　endeavour　to　alleviate　his



punishment；　by　showing　him　how　he　may　avoid　or　cure　the　evils　his



conduct　tends　to　bring　upon　him。　He　may　be　to　us　an　object　of　pity；



perhaps　of　dislike；　but　not　of　anger　or　resentment；　we　shall　not　treat



him　like　an　enemy　of　society：　the　worst　we　shall　think　ourselves



justified　in　doing　is　leaving　him　to　himself；　if　we　do　not　interfere



benevolently　by　showing　interest　or　concern　for　him。　It　is　far



otherwise　if　he　has　infringed　the　rules　necessary　for　the　protection



of　his　fellow　creatures；　individually　or　collectively。　The　evil



consequences　of　his　acts　do　not　then　fall　on　himself；　but　on　others；



and　society；　as　the　protector　of　all　its　members；　must　retaliate　on



him；　must　inflict　pain　on　him　for　the　express　purpose　of　punishment；



and　must　take　care　that　it　be　sufficiently　severe。　In　the　one　case；　he



is　an　offender　at　our　bar；　and　we　are　called　on　not　only　to　sit　in



judgment　on　him；　but；　in　one　shape　or　another；　to　execute　our　own



sentence：　in　the　other　case；　it　is　not　our　part　to　inflict　any



suffering　on　him；　except　what　may　incidentally　follow　from　our　using



the　same　liberty　in　the　regulation　of　our　own　affairs；　which　we



allow　to　him　in　his。



　　The　distinction　here　pointed　out　between　the　part　of　a　person's　life



which　concerns　only　himself；　and　that　which　concerns　others；　many



persons　will　refuse　to　admit。　How　（it　may　be　asked）　can　any　part　of



the　conduct　of　a　member　of　society　be　a　matter　of　indifference　to



the　other　members？　No　person　is　an　entirely　isolated　being；　it　is



impossible　for　a　person　to　do　anything　seriously　or　permanently



hurtful　to　himself；　without　mischief　reaching　at　least　to　his　near



connections；　and　often　far　beyond　them。　If　he　injures　his　property；　he



does　harm　to　those　who　directly　or　indirectly　derived　support　from　it；



and　usually　diminishes；　by　a　greater　or　less　amount；　the　general



resource；　of　the　community。　If　he　deteriorates　his　bodily　or　mental



faculties；　he　not　only　brings　evil　upon　all　who　depended　on　him　for



any　portion　of　their　happiness；　but　disqualifies　himself　for　rendering



the　services　which　he　owes　to　his　fellow　creatures　generally；



perhaps　becomes　a　burthen　on　their　affection　or　benevolence；　and　if



such　conduct　were　very　frequent；　hardly　any　offence　that　is



committed　would　detract　more　from　the　general　sum　of　good。　Finally；　if



by　his　vices　or　follies　a　person　does　no　direct　harm　to　others；　he



is　nevertheless　（it　may　be　said）　injurious　by　his　example；　and　ought



to　be　compelled　to　control　himself；　for　the　sake　of　those　whom　the



sight　or　knowledge　of　his　conduct　might　corrupt　or　mislead。



　　And　even　（it　will　be　added）　if　the　consequences　of　misconduct



could　be　confined　to　the　vicious　or　thoughtless　individual；　ought



society　to　abandon　to　their　own　guidance　those　who　are　manifestly



unfit　for　it？　If　protection　against　themselves　is　confessedly　due　to



children　and　persons　under　age；　is　not　society　equally　bound　to　afford



it　to　persons　of　mature　years　who　are　equally　incapable　of



self…government？　If　gambling；　or　drunkenness；　or　incontinence；　or



idleness；　or　uncleanliness；　are　as　injurious　to　happiness；　and　as



great　a　hindrance　to　improvement；　as　many　or　most　of　the　acts



prohibited　by　law；　why　（it　may　be　asked）　should　not　law；　so　far　as



is　consistent　with　practicability　and　social　convenience；　endeavour　to



repress　these　also？　And　as　a　supplement　to　the　unavoidable



imperfections　of　law；　ought　not　opinion　at　least　to　organise　a



powerful　police　against　these　vices；　and　visit　rigidly　with　social



penalties　those　who　are　known　to　practise　them？　There　is　no　question



here　（it　may　be　said）　about　restricting　individuality；　or　impeding　the



trial　of　new　and　original　experiments　in　living。　The　only　things　it　is



sought　to　prevent　are　things　which　have　been　tried　and　condemned



from　the　beginning　of　the　world　until　now；　things　which　experience　has



shown　not　to　be　useful　or　suitable　to　any　person's　individuality。



There　must　be　some　length　of　time　and　amount　of　experience　after　which



a　moral　or　prudential　truth　may　be　regarded　as　established：　and　it



is　merely　desired　to　prevent　generation　after　generation　from



falling　over　the　same　precipice　which　has　been　fatal　to　their



predecessors。



　　I　fully　admit　that　the　mischief　which　a　person　does　to　himself　may



seriously　affect；　both　through　their　sympathies　and　their　interests；



those　nearly　connected　with　him　and；　in　a　minor　degree；　society　at



large。　When；　by　conduct　of　this　sort；　a　person　is　led　to　violate　a



distinct　and　assignable　obligation　to　any　other　person　or　persons；　the



case　is　taken　out　of　the　self…regarding　class；　and　becomes　amenable　to



moral　disapprobation　in　the　proper　sense　of　the　term。　If；　for　example；



a　man；　through　intemperance　or　extravagance；　becomes　unable　to　pay　his



debts；　or；　having　undertaken　the　moral　responsibility　of　a　family；



becomes　from　the　same　cause　incapable　of　supporting　or　educating　them；



he　is　deservedly　reprobated；　and　might　be　justly　punished；　but　it　is



for　the　breach　of　duty　to　his　family　or　creditors；　not　for　the



extravagance。　If　the　resources　which　ought　to　have　been　devoted　to



them；　had　been　diverted　from　them　for　the　most　prudent　investment；　the



moral　culpability　would　have　been　the　same。　George　Barnwell　murdered



his　uncle　to　get　money　for　his　mistress；　but　if　he　had　done　it　to



set　himself　up　in　business；　he　would　equally　have　been　hanged。



Again；　in　the　frequent　case　of　a　man　who　causes　grief　to　his　family　by



addiction　to　bad　habits；　he　deserves　reproach　for　his　unkindness　or



ingratitude；　but　so　he　may　for　cultivating　habits　not　in　themselves



vicious；　if　they　are　painful　to　those　with　whom　he　passes　his　life；



who　from　personal　ties　are　dependent　on　him　for　their　comfort。　Whoever



fails　in　the　consideration　generally　due　to　the　interests　and　feelings



of　others；　not　being　compelled　by　some　more　imperative　duty；　or



justified　by　allowable　self…preference；　is　a　subject　of　moral



disapprobation　for　that　failure；　but　not　for　the　cause　of　it；　nor



for　the　errors；　merely　personal　to　himself；　which　may　have　remotely



led　to　it。　In　like　manner；　when　a　person　disables　himself；　by



conduct　purely　self…regarding；　from　the　performance　of　some　definite



duty　incumbent　on　him　to　the　public；　he　is　guilty　of　a　social　offence。



No　person　ought　to　be　punished　simply　for　being　drunk；　but　a　soldier



or　a　policeman　should　be　punished　for　being　drunk　on　duty。　Whenever；



in　short；　there　is　a　definite　damage；　or　a　definite　risk　of　damage；



either　to　an　individual　or　to　the　public；　the　case　is　taken　out　of　the



province　of　liberty；　and　placed　in　that　of　morality　or　law。



　　But　with　regard　to　the　merely　contingent；　or；　as　it　may　be　called；



constructive　injury　which　a　person　causes　to　soc