on liberty-第5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!
practice。 Society has expended fully as much effort in the attempt
(according to its lights) to compel people to conform to its notions
of personal as of social excellence。 The ancient commonwealths thought
themselves entitled to practise; and the ancient philosophers
countenanced; the regulation of every part of private conduct by
public authority; on the ground that the State had a deep interest
in the whole bodily and mental discipline of every one of its
citizens; a mode of thinking which may have been admissible in small
republics surrounded by powerful enemies; in constant peril of being
subverted by foreign attack or internal commotion; and to which even a
short interval of relaxed energy and self…command might so easily be
fatal that they could not afford to wait for the salutary permanent
effects of freedom。 In the modern world; the greater size of political
communities; and; above all; the separation between spiritual and
temporal authority (which placed the direction of men's consciences in
other hands than those which controlled their worldly affairs);
prevented so great an interference by law in the details of private
life; but the engines of moral repression have been wielded more
strenuously against divergence from the reigning opinion in
self…regarding; than even in social matters; religion; the most
powerful of the elements which have entered into the formation of
moral feeling; having almost always been governed either by the
ambition of a hierarchy; seeking control over every department of
human conduct; or by the spirit of Puritanism。 And some of those
modern reformers who have placed themselves in strongest opposition to
the religions of the past; have been noway behind either churches or
sects in their assertion of the right of spiritual domination: M。
Comte; in particular; whose social system; as unfolded in his
Systeme de Politique Positive; aims at establishing (though by moral
more than by legal appliances) a despotism of society over the
individual; surpassing anything contemplated in the political ideal of
the most rigid disciplinarian among the ancient philosophers。
Apart from the peculiar tenets of individual thinkers; there is also
in the world at large an increasing inclination to stretch unduly
the powers of society over the individual; both by the force of
opinion and even by that of legislation; and as the tendency of all
the changes taking place in the world is to strengthen society; and
diminish the power of the individual; this encroachment is not one
of the evils which tend spontaneously to disappear; but; on the
contrary; to grow more and more formidable。 The disposition of
mankind; whether as rulers or as fellow…citizens; to impose their
own opinions and inclinations as a rule of conduct on others; is so
energetically supported by some of the best and by some of the worst
feelings incident to human nature; that it is hardly ever kept under
restraint by anything but want of power; and as the power is not
declining; but growing; unless a strong barrier of moral conviction
can be raised against the mischief; we must expect; in the present
circumstances of the world; to see it increase。
It will be convenient for the argument; if; instead of at once
entering upon the general thesis; we confine ourselves in the first
instance to a single branch of it; on which the principle here
stated is; if not fully; yet to a certain point; recognised by the
current opinions。 This one branch is the Liberty of Thought: from
which it is impossible to separate the cognate liberty of speaking and
of writing。 Although these liberties; to some considerable amount;
form part of the political morality of all countries which profess
religious toleration and free institutions; the grounds; both
philosophical and practical; on which they rest; are perhaps not so
familiar to the general mind; nor so thoroughly appreciated by many
even of the leaders of opinion; as might have been expected。 Those
grounds; when rightly understood; are of much wider application than
to only one division of the subject; and a thorough consideration of
this part of the question will be found the best introduction to the
remainder。 Those to whom nothing which I am about to say will be
new; may therefore; I hope; excuse me; if on a subject which for now
three centuries has been so often discussed; I venture on one
discussion more。
Chapter 2。
Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion。
THE TIME; it is to be hoped; is gone by; when any defence would be
necessary of the 〃liberty of the press〃 as one of the securities
against corrupt or tyrannical government。 No argument; we may suppose;
can now be needed; against permitting a legislature or an executive;
not identified in interest with the people; to prescribe opinions to
them; and determine what doctrines or what arguments they shall be
allowed to hear。 This aspect of the question; besides; has been so
of and so triumphantly enforced by preceding writers; that it needs
not be specially insisted on in this place。 Though the law of England;
on the subject of the press; is as servile to this day as it was in
the time of the Tudors; there is little danger of its being actually
put in force against political discussion; except during some
temporary panic; when fear of insurrection drives ministers and judges
from their propriety;* and; speaking generally; it is not; in
constitutional countries; to be apprehended; that the government;
whether completely responsible to the people or not; will often
attempt to control the expression of opinion; except when in doing
so it makes itself the organ of the general intolerance of the public。
Let us suppose; therefore; that the government is entirely at one with
the people; and never thinks of exerting any power of coercion
unless in agreement with what it conceives to be their voice。 But I
deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion; either by
themselves or by their government。 The power itself is illegitimate。
The best government has no more title to it than the worst。 It is as
noxious; or more noxious; when exerted in accordance with public
opinion; than when in opposition to it。 If all mankind minus one
were of one opinion; and only one person were of the contrary opinion;
mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person;
than he; if he had the power; would be justified in silencing mankind。
Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner;
if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private
injury; it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted
only on a few persons or on many。 But the peculiar evil of silencing
the expression of an opinion is; that it is robbing the human race;
posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from
the opinion; still more than those who hold it。 If the opinion is
right; they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for
truth: if wrong; they lose; what is almost as great a benefit; the
clearer perception and livelier impression of truth; produced by its
collision with error。
* These words had scarcely been written; when; as if to give them
an emphatic contradiction; occurred the Government Press
Prosecutions of 1858。 That ill…judged interference with the liberty of
public discussion has not; however; induced me to alter a single
word in the text; nor has it at all weakened my conviction that;
moments of panic excepted; the era of pains and penalties for
political discussion has; in our own country; passed away。 For; in the
first place; the prosecutions were not persisted in; and; in the
secon