on liberty- 第4部分

freedom　of　opinion　and　sentiment　on　all　subjects；　practical　or



speculative；　scientific；　moral；　or　theological。　The　liberty　of



expressing　and　publishing　opinions　may　seem　to　fall　under　a



different　principle；　since　it　belongs　to　that　part　of　the　conduct　of



an　individual　which　concerns　other　people；　but；　being　almost　of　as



much　importance　as　the　liberty　of　thought　itself；　and　resting　in　great



part　on　the　same　reasons；　is　practically　inseparable　from　it。



Secondly；　the　principle　requires　liberty　of　tastes　and　pursuits；　of



framing　the　plan　of　our　life　to　suit　our　own　character；　of　doing　as　we



like；　subject　to　such　consequences　as　may　follow：　without　impediment



from　our　fellow　creatures；　so　long　as　what　we　do　does　not　harm　them；



even　though　they　should　think　our　conduct　foolish；　perverse；　or　wrong。



Thirdly；　from　this　liberty　of　each　individual；　follows　the　liberty；



within　the　same　limits；　of　combination　among　individuals；　freedom　to



unite；　for　any　purpose　not　involving　harm　to　others：　the　persons



combining　being　supposed　to　be　of　full　age；　and　not　forced　or



deceived。



　　No　society　in　which　these　liberties　are　not；　on　the　whole；



respected；　is　free；　whatever　may　be　its　form　of　government；　and　none



is　completely　free　in　which　they　do　not　exist　absolute　and



unqualified。　The　only　freedom　which　deserves　the　name；　is　that　of



pursuing　our　own　good　in　our　own　way；　so　long　as　we　do　not　attempt



to　deprive　others　of　theirs；　or　impede　their　efforts　to　obtain　it。



Each　is　the　proper　guardian　of　his　own　health；　whether　bodily；　or



mental　and　spiritual。　Mankind　are　greater　gainers　by　suffering　each



other　to　live　as　seems　good　to　themselves；　than　by　compelling　each



to　live　as　seems　good　to　the　rest。



　　Though　this　doctrine　is　anything　but　new；　and；　to　some　persons；



may　have　the　air　of　a　truism；　there　is　no　doctrine　which　stands　more



directly　opposed　to　the　general　tendency　of　existing　opinion　and



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



s