on liberty- 第24部分

Without　doubt；　abstinence　on　one　day　in　the　week；　so　far　as　the



exigencies　of　life　permit；　from　the　usual　daily　occupation；　though



in　no　respect　religiously　binding　on　any　except　Jews；　is　a　highly



beneficial　custom。　And　inasmuch　as　this　custom　cannot　be　observed



without　a　general　consent　to　that　effect　among　the　industrious



classes；　therefore；　in　so　far　as　some　persons　by　working　may　impose



the　same　necessity　on　others；　it　may　be　allowable　and　right　that　the



law　should　guarantee　to　each　the　observance　by　others　of　the　custom；



by　suspending　the　greater　operations　of　industry　on　a　particular



day。　But　this　justification；　grounded　on　the　direct　interest　which



others　have　in　each　individual's　observance　of　the　practice；　does



not　apply　to　the　self…chosen　occupations　in　which　a　person　may　think



fit　to　employ　his　leisure；　nor　does　it　hold　good；　in　the　smallest



degree；　for　legal　restrictions　on　amusements。　It　is　true　that　the



amusement　of　some　is　the　day's　work　of　others；　but　the　pleasure；　not



to　say　the　useful　recreation；　of　many；　is　worth　the　labour　of　a　few；



provided　the　occupation　is　freely　chosen；　and　can　be　freely



resigned。　The　operatives　are　perfectly　right　in　thinking　that　if　all



worked　on　Sunday；　seven　days'　work　would　have　to　be　given　for　six



days'　wages；　but　so　long　as　the　great　mass　of　employments　are



suspended；　the　small　number　who　for　the　enjoyment　of　others　must　still



work；　obtain　a　proportional　increase　of　earnings；　and　they　are　not



obliged　to　follow　those　occupations　if　they　prefer　leisure　to



emolument。　If　a　further　remedy　is　sought；　it　might　be　found　in　the



establishment　by　custom　of　a　holiday　on　some　other　day　of　the　week　for



those　particular　classes　of　persons。　The　only　ground；　therefore；　on



which　restrictions　on　Sunday　amusements　can　be　defended；　must　be



that　they　are　religiously　wrong；　a　motive　of　legislation　which　can



never　be　too　earnestly　protested　against。　Deorum　injuriae　Diis



curae。　It　remains　to　be　proved　that　society　or　any　of　its　officers



holds　a　commission　from　on　high　to　avenge　any　supposed　offence　to



Omnipotence；　which　is　not　also　a　wrong　to　our　fellow　creatures。　The



notion　that　it　is　one　man's　duty　that　another　should　be　religious；　was



the　foundation　of　all　the　religious　persecutions　ever　perpetrated；



and；　if　admitted；　would　fully　justify　them。　Though　the　feeling　which



breaks　out　in　the　repeated　attempts　to　stop　railway　travelling　on



Sunday；　in　the　resistance　to　the　opening　of　Museums；　and　the　like；　has



not　the　cruelty　of　the　old　persecutors；　the　state　of　mind　indicated　by



it　is　fundamentally　the　same。　It　is　a　determination　not　to　tolerate



others　in　doing　what　is　permitted　by　their　religion；　because　it　is　not



permitted　by　the　persecutor's　religion。　It　is　a　belief　that　God　not



only　abominates　the　act　of　the　misbeliever；　but　will　not　hold　us



guiltless　if　we　leave　him　unmolested。



　　I　cannot　refrain　from　adding　to　these　examples　of　the　little　account



commonly　made　of　human　liberty；　the　language　of　downright



persecution　which　breaks　out　from　the　press　of　this　country　whenever



it　feels　called　on　to　notice　the　remarkable　phenomenon　of　Mormonism。



Much　might　be　said　on　the　unexpected　and　instructive　fact　that　an



alleged　new　revelation；　and　a　religion　founded　on　it；　the　product　of



palpable　imposture；　not　even　supported　by　the　prestige　of



extraordinary　qualities　in　its　founder；　is　believed　by　hundreds　of



thousands；　and　has　been　made　the　foundation　of　a　society；　in　the　age



of　newspapers；　railways；　and　the　electric　telegraph。　What　here



concerns　us　is；　that　this　religion；　like　other　and　better　religions；



has　its　martyrs：　that　its　prophet　and　founder　was；　for　his　teaching；



put　to　death　by　a　mob；　that　others　of　its　adherents　lost　their　lives



by　the　same　lawless　violence；　that　they　were　forcibly　expelled；　in　a



body；　from　the　country　in　which　they　first　grew　up；　while；　now　that



they　have　been　chased　into　a　solitary　recess　in　the　midst　of　a　desert；



many　in　this　country　openly　declare　that　it　would　be　right　（only



that　it　is　not　convenient）　to　send　an　expedition　against　them；　and



compel　them　by　force　to　conform　to　the　opinions　of　other　people。　The



article　of　the　Mormonite　doctrine　which　is　the　chief　provocative　to



the　antipathy　which　thus　breaks　through　the　ordinary　restraints　of



religious　tolerance；　is　its　sanction　of　polygamy；　which；　though



permitted　to　Mahomedans；　and　Hindoos；　and　Chinese；　seems　to　excite



unquenchable　animosity　when　practised　by　persons　who　speak　English　and



profess　to　be　a　kind　of　Christians。　No　one　has　a　deeper　disapprobation



than　I　have　of　this　Mormon　institution；　both　for　other　reasons；　and



because；　far　from　being　in　any　way　countenanced　by　the　principle　of



liberty；　it　is　a　direct　infraction　of　that　principle；　being　a　mere



riveting　of　the　chains　of　one　half　of　the　community；　and　an



emancipation　of　the　other　from　reciprocity　of　obligation　towards　them。



Still；　it　must　be　remembered　that　this　relation　is　as　much　voluntary



on　the　part　of　the　women　concerned　in　it；　and　who　may　be　deemed　the



sufferers　by　it；　as　is　the　case　with　any　other　form　of　the　marriage



institution；　and　however　surprising　this　fact　may　appear；　it　has　its



explanation　in　the　common　ideas　and　customs　of　the　world；　which



teaching　women　to　think　marriage　the　one　thing　needful；　make　it



intelligible　that　many　woman　should　prefer　being　one　of　several　wives；



to　not　being　a　wife　at　all。　Other　countries　are　not　asked　to　recognise



such　unions；　or　release　any　portion　of　their　inhabitants　from　their



own　laws　on　the　score　of　Mormonite　opinions。　But　when　the　dissentients



have　conceded　to　the　hostile　sentiments　of　others　far　more　than



could　justly　be　demanded；　when　they　have　left　the　countries　to　which



their　doctrines　were　unacceptable；　and　established　themselves　in　a



remote　corner　of　the　earth；　which　they　have　been　the　first　to　render



habitable　to　human　beings；　it　is　difficult　to　see　on　what　principles



but　those　of　tyranny　they　can　be　prevented　from　living　there　under



what　laws　they　please；　provided　they　commit　no　aggression　on　other



nations；　and　allow　perfect　freedom　of　departure　to　those　who　are



dissatisfied　with　their　ways。



　　A　recent　writer；　in　some　respects　of　considerable　merit；　proposes



（to　use　his　own　words）　not　a　crusade；　but　a　civilisade；　against　this



polygamous　community；　to　put　an　end　to　what　seems　to　him　a



retrograde　step　in　civilisation。　It　also　appears　so　to　me；　but　I　am



not　aware　that　any　community　has　a　right　to　force　another　to　be



civilised。　So　long　as　the　sufferers　by　the　bad　law　do　not　invoke



assistance　from　other　communities；　I　cannot　admit　that　persons



entirely　unconnected　with　them　ought　to　step　in　and　require　that　a



condition　of　things　with　which　all　who　are　directly　interested



appear　to　be　satisfied；　should　be　put　an　end　to　because　it　is　a



scandal　to　persons　some　thousands　of　miles　distant；　who　have　no　part



or　concern　in　it。　Let　them　send　missionaries；　if　they　please；　to



preach　against　it；　and　let　them；　by　any　fair　means　（of　which　silencing



the　teachers　is　not　one）；　oppose　the　progress　of　similar　doctrines



among　their　own　people。　If　civilisation　has　got　the　better　of



barbarism　when　barbarism　had　the　world　to　itself；　it　is　too　much　to



profess　to　be　afraid　lest　barbarism；　after　having　been　fairly　got



under；　should　revive　and　conquer　civilisation。　A　civilisation　that　can



thus　succumb　to　its　vanquished　enemy；　must　first　have　become　so



degenerate；　that　neither　its　appointed　priests　and　teachers；　nor



anybody　else；　has　the　capacity；　or　will　take　the　trouble；　to　stand



up　for　it。　If　this　be　so；　the　sooner　such　a　civilisation　receives



notice　to　quit　the　better。　It　can　only　go　on　from　bad　to　worse；



until　destroyed　and　regenerated　（like　the　Western　Empire）　by　energetic



barbarians。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Chapter　5。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Applications。







　　THE　PRINCIPLES　asserted　in　these　pages　must　be　more　generally



admitted　as　the　basis　for　discussion　of　details；　before　a　consistent



application　of　them　to　all　the　various　departments　of　government　and



morals　can　be　attempted　with　any　prospect　of　advantage。　The　few



observations　I　propose　to　make　on　questions　of　detail　are　designed



to　illustrate　the　principles；　rather　than　to　follow　them　out　to



their　consequences。　I　offer；　not　so　much　applications；　as　specimens　of



application；　which　may　serve　to　bring　into　greater　clearness　the



meaning　and　limits　of　the　two　maxims　which　together　form　the　entire



doctrine　of　this　Essay；　and　to　assist　the　judgment　in　holding　the



balance　between　them；　in　the　cases　where　it　appears　doubtful　which



of　them　is　applicable　to　the　case。



　　The　maxims　are；　first；　that　the　individual　is　not　accountable　to



society　for　his　actions；　in　so　far　as　these　concern　the　interests　of



no　person　but　himself。　Advice；　instruction；　persuasion；　and



avoidance　by　other　people　if　thought　necessary　by　them　for　their　own



good；　are　the　only　measures　by　which　society　can　justifiably　express



its　dislike　or　disapprobation　of　his　conduct。　Secondly；　that　for



such　actions　as　are　prejudicial　to　the　interests　of　others；　the



individual　is　accountable；　and　may　be　subjected　either　to　social　or　to



legal　punishment；　if　society　is　of　opinion　that　the　one　or　the　other



is　requisite　for　its　protection。



　　In　the　first　place；　it　must　by　no　means　be　supposed；　because　damage；



or　probability　of　damage；　to　the　interests　of　others；　can　alone



justify　the　interference　of　society；　that　therefore　it　always　does



justify　such　interference。　In　many　cases；　an　individual；　in　pursuing　a



legitimate　object；　necessarily　and　therefore　legitimately　causes



pain　or　loss　to　others；　or　intercepts　a　good　which　they　had