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！




comprehensive　as　his　own　country　or　his　own　age。　Nor　is　his　faith　in



this　collective　authority　at　all　shaken　by　his　being　aware　that



other　ages；　countries；　sects；　churches；　classes；　and　parties　have



thought；　and　even　now　think；　the　exact　reverse。　He　devolves　upon　his



own　world　the　responsibility　of　being　in　the　right　against　the



dissentient　worlds　of　other　people；　and　it　never　troubles　him　that



mere　accident　has　decided　which　of　these　numerous　worlds　is　the　object



of　his　reliance；　and　that　the　same　causes　which　make　him　a　Churchman



in　London；　would　have　made　him　a　Buddhist　or　a　Confucian　in　Pekin。　Yet



it　is　as　evident　in　itself；　as　any　amount　of　argument　can　make　it；



that　ages　are　no　more　infallible　than　individuals；　every　age　having



held　many　opinions　which　subsequent　ages　have　deemed　not　only　false



but　absurd；　and　it　is　as　certain　that　many　opinions　now　general　will



be　rejected　by　future　ages；　as　it　is　that　many；　once　general；　are



rejected　by　the　present。



　　The　objection　likely　to　be　made　to　this　argument　would　probably　take



some　such　form　as　the　following。　There　is　no　greater　assumption　of



infallibility　in　forbidding　the　propagation　of　error；　than　in　any



other　thing　which　is　done　by　public　authority　on　its　own　judgment



and　responsibility。　Judgment　is　given　to　men　that　they　may　use　it。



Because　it　may　be　used　erroneously；　are　men　to　be　told　that　they　ought



not　to　use　it　at　all？　To　prohibit　what　they　think　pernicious；　is　not



claiming　exemption　from　error；　but　fulfilling　the　duty　incumbent　on



them；　although　fallible；　of　acting　on　their　conscientious



conviction。　If　we　were　never　to　act　on　our　opinions；　because　those



opinions　may　be　wrong；　we　should　leave　all　our　interests　uncared



for；　and　all　our　duties　unperformed。　An　objection　which　applies　to　all



conduct　can　be　no　valid　objection　to　any　conduct　in　particular。　It



is　the　duty　of　governments；　and　of　individuals；　to　form　the　truest



opinions　they　can；　to　form　them　carefully；　and　never　impose　them



upon　others　unless　they　are　quite　sure　of　being　right。　But　when　they



are　sure　（such　reasoners　may　say）；　it　is　not　conscientiousness　but



cowardice　to　shrink　from　acting　on　their　opinions；　and　allow　doctrines



which　they　honestly　think　dangerous　to　the　welfare　of　mankind；



either　in　this　life　or　in　another；　to　be　scattered　abroad　without



restraint；　because　other　people；　in　less　enlightened　times；　have



persecuted　opinions　now　believed　to　be　true。　Let　us　take　care；　it



may　be　said；　not　to　make　the　same　mistake：　but　governments　and　nations



have　made　mistakes　in　other　things；　which　are　not　denied　to　be　fit



subjects　for　the　exercise　of　authority：　they　have　laid　on　bad　taxes；



made　unjust　wars。　Ought　we　therefore　to　lay　on　no　taxes；　and；　under



whatever　provocation；　make　no　wars？　Men；　and　governments；　must　act



to　the　best　of　their　ability。　There　is　no　such　thing　as　absolute



certainty；　but　there　is　assurance　sufficient　for　the　purposes　of　human



life。　We　may；　and　must；　assume　our　opinion　to　be　true　for　the　guidance



of　our　own　conduct：　and　it　is　assuming　no　more　when　we　forbid　bad



men　to　pervert　society　by　the　propagation　of　opinions　which　we



regard　as　false　and　pernicious。



　　I　answer；　that　it　is　assuming　very　much　more。　There　is　the



greatest　difference　between　presuming　an　opinion　to　be　true；



because；　with　every　opportunity　for　contesting　it；　it　has　not　been



refuted；　and　assuming　its　truth　for　the　purpose　of　not　permitting



its　refutation。　Complete　liberty　of　contradicting　and　disproving　our



opinion　is　the　very　condition　which　justifies　us　in　assuming　its　truth



for　purposes　of　action；　and　on　no　other　terms　can　a　being　with　human



faculties　have　any　rational　assurance　of　being　right。



　　When　we　consider　either　the　history　of　opinion；　or　the　ordinary



conduct　of　human　life；　to　what　is　it　to　be　ascribed　that　the　one　and



the　other　are　no　worse　than　they　are？　Not　certainly　to　the　inherent



force　of　the　human　understanding；　for；　on　any　matter　not　self…evident；



there　are　ninety…nine　persons　totally　incapable　of　judging　of　it　for



one　who　is　capable；　and　the　capacity　of　the　hundredth　person　is　only



comparative；　for　the　majority　of　the　eminent　men　of　every　past



generation　held　many　opinions　now　known　to　be　erroneous；　and　did　or



approved　numerous　things　which　no　one　will　now　justify。　Why　is　it；



then；　that　there　is　on　the　whole　a　preponderance　among　mankind　of



rational　opinions　and　rational　conduct？　If　there　really　is　this



preponderance…　which　there　must　be　unless　human　affairs　are；　and　have



always　been；　in　an　almost　desperate　state…　it　is　owing　to　a　quality



of　the　human　mind；　the　source　of　everything　respectable　in　man



either　as　an　intellectual　or　as　a　moral　being；　namely；　that　his　errors



are　corrigible。　He　is　capable　of　rectifying　his　mistakes；　by



discussion　and　experience。　Not　by　experience　alone。　There　must　be



discussion；　to　show　how　experience　is　to　be　interpreted。　Wrong



opinions　and　practices　gradually　yield　to　fact　and　argument；　but　facts



and　arguments；　to　produce　any　effect　on　the　mind；　must　be　brought



before　it。　Very　few　facts　are　able　to　tell　their　own　story；　without



comments　to　bring　out　their　meaning。　The　whole　strength　and　value；



then；　of　human　judgment；　depending　on　the　one　property；　that　it　can　be



set　right　when　it　is　wrong；　reliance　can　be　placed　on　it　only　when　the



means　of　setting　it　right　are　kept　constantly　at　hand。　In　the　case



of　any　person　whose　judgment　is　really　deserving　of　confidence；　how



has　it　become　so？　Because　he　has　kept　his　mind　open　to　criticism　of



his　opinions　and　conduct。　Because　it　has　been　his　practice　to　listen



to　all　that　could　be　said　against　him；　to　profit　by　as　much　of　it　as



was　just；　and　expound　to　himself；　and　upon　occasion　to　others；　the



fallacy　of　what　was　fallacious。　Because　he　has　felt；　that　the　only　way



in　which　a　human　being　can　make　some　approach　to　knowing　the　whole



of　a　subject；　is　by　hearing　what　can　be　said　about　it　by　persons　of



every　variety　of　opinion；　and　studying　all　modes　in　which　it　can　be



looked　at　by　every　character　of　mind。　No　wise　man　ever　acquired　his



wisdom　in　any　mode　but　this；　nor　is　it　in　the　nature　of　human



intellect　to　become　wise　in　any　other　manner。　The　steady　habit　of



correcting　and　completing　his　own　opinion　by　collating　it　with　those



of　others；　so　far　from　causing　doubt　and　hesitation　in　carrying　it



into　practice；　is　the　only　stable　foundation　for　a　just　reliance　on



it：　for；　being　cognisant　of　all　that　can；　at　least　obviously；　be



said　against　him；　and　having　taken　up　his　position　against　all



gainsayers…　knowing　that　he　has　sought　for　objections　and



difficulties；　instead　of　avoiding　them；　and　has　shut　out　no　light



which　can　be　thrown　upon　the　subject　from　any　quarter…　he　has　a　right



to　think　his　judgment　better　than　that　of　any　person；　or　any



multitude；　who　have　not　gone　through　a　similar　process。



　　It　is　not　too　much　to　require　that　what　the　wisest　of　mankind；　those



who　are　best　entitled　to　trust　their　own　judgment；　find　necessary　to



warrant　their　relying　on　it；　should　be　submitted　to　by　that



miscellaneous　collection　of　a　few　wise　and　many　foolish　individuals；



called　the　public。　The　most　intolerant　of　churches；　the　Roman　Catholic



Church；　even　at　the　canonisation　of　a　saint；　admits；　and　listens



patiently　to；　a　〃devil's　advocate。〃　The　holiest　of　men；　it　appears；



cannot　be　admitted　to　posthumous　honours；　until　all　that　the　devil



could　say　against　him　is　known　and　weighed。　If　even　the　Newtonian



philosophy　were　not　permitted　to　be　questioned；　mankind　could　not　feel



as　complete　assurance　of　its　truth　as　they　now　do。　The　beliefs　which



we　have　most　warrant　for　have　no　safeguard　to　rest　on；　but　a



standing　invitation　to　the　whole　world　to　prove　them　unfounded。　If　the



challenge　is　not　accepted；　or　is　accepted　and　the　attempt　fails；　we



are　far　enough　from　certainty　still；　but　we　have　done　the　best　that



the　existing　state　of　human　reason　admits　of；　we　have　neglected



nothing　that　could　give　the　truth　a　chance　of　reaching　us：　if　the



lists　are　kept　open；　we　may　hope　that　if　there　be　a　better　truth；　it



will　be　found　when　the　human　mind　is　capable　of　receiving　it；　and　in



the　meantime　we　may　rely　on　having　attained　such　approach　to　truth



as　is　possible　in　our　own　day。　This　is　the　amount　of　certainty



attainable　by　a　fallible　being；　and　this　the　sole　way　of　attaining　it。



　　Strange　it　is；　that　men　should　admit　the　validity　of　the　arguments



for　free　discussion；　but　object　to　their　being　〃pushed　to　an　extreme〃；



not　seeing　that　unless　the　reasons　are　good　for　an　extreme　case；



they　are　not　good　for　any　case。　Strange　that　they　should　imagine



that　they　are　not　assuming　infallibility；　when　they　acknowledge　that



there　should　be　free　discussion　on　all　subjects　which　can　possibly



be　doubtful；　but　think　that　some　particular　principle　or　doctrine



should　be　forbidden　to　be　questioned　because　it　is　so　certain；　that



is；　because　they　are　certain　that　it　is　certain。　To　call　any



proposition　certain；　while　there　is　any　one　who　would　deny　its



certainty　if　permitted；　but　who　is　not　permitted；　is　to　assume　that　we



ourselves；　and　those　who　agree　with　us；　are　the　judges　of　certainty；



and　judges　without　hearing　the　other　side。



　　In　the　present　age…　which　has　been　described　as　〃destitute　of



faith；　but　terrified　at　scepticism〃…　in　which　people　feel　sure；　not



so　much　that　their　opinions　are　true；　as　that　they　should　not　know



what　to　do　without　them…　the　claims　of　an　opinion　to　be　protected



from　public　attack　are　rested　not　so　much　on　its　truth；　as　on　its



importance　to　society。　There　are；　it　is　alleged；　certain　beliefs　so



useful；　not　to　say　indispensable；　to　well…being　that　it　is　as　much　the



duty　of　governments　to　uphold　those　beliefs；　as　to　protect　any　other



of　the　interests　of　society。　In　a　case　of　such　necessity；　and　so



directly　in　the　line　of　their　duty；　something　less　than



infallibility　may；　it　is　maintained；　warrant；　and　even　bind；



governments　to　act　on　their　own　opinion；　confirmed　by　the　general



opinion　of　mankind。　It　is　also　often　argued；　and　still　oftener



thought；　that　none　but　bad　men　would　desire　to　weaken　these　salutary



beliefs；　and　there　can　be　nothing　wrong；　it　is　thought；　in　restraining



bad　men；　and　prohibiting　what　only　such　men　would　wish　to　practise。



This　mode　of　thinking　makes　the　justification　of　restraints　on



discussion　not　a　question　of　the　truth　of　doctrines；　but　of　their



usefulness；　and　flatters　itself　by　that　means　to　escape　the



responsibility　of　claiming　to　be　an　infallible　judge　of　opinions。



　　But　those　who　thus　satisfy　themselves；　do　not　perceive　that　the



assumption　of　infallibility　is　merely　shifted　fr