on liberty-第6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！




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



assumption　of　infallibility　is　merely　shifted　from　one　point　to



another。　The　usefulness　of　an　opinion　is　itself　matter　of　opinion：



as　disputable；　as　open　to　discussion；　and　requiring　discussion　as　much



as　the　opinion　itself。　There　is　the　same　need　of　an　infallible　judge



of　opinions　to　decide　an　opinion　to　be　noxious；　as　to　decide　it　to



be　false；　unless　the　opinion　condemned　has　full　opportunity　of



defending　itself。　And　it　will　not　do　to　say　that　the　heretic　may　be



allowed　to　maintain　the　utility　or　harmlessness　of　his　opinion；　though



forbidden　to　maintain　its　truth。　The　truth　of　an　opinion　is　part　of



its　utility。　If　we　would　know　whether　or　not　it　is　desirable　that　a



proposition　should　be　believed；　is　it　possible　to　exclude　the



consideration　of　whether　or　not　it　is　true？　In　the　opinion；　not　of　bad



men；　but　of　the　best　men；　no　belief　which　is　contrary　to　truth　can



be　really　useful：　and　can　you　prevent　such　men　from　urging　that



plea；　when　they　are　charged　with　culpability　for　denying　some　doctrine



which　they　are　told　is　useful；　but　which　they　believe　to　be　false？



Those　who　are　on　the　side　of　received　opinions　never　fail　to　take



all　possible　advantage　of　this　plea；　you　do　not　find　them　handling　the



question　of　utility　as　if　it　could　be　completely　abstracted　from



that　of　truth：　on　the　contrary；　it　is；　above　all；　because　their



doctrine　is　〃the　truth；〃　that　the　knowledge　or　the　belief　of　it　is



held　to　be　so　indispensable。　There　can　be　no　fair　discussion　of　the



question　of　usefulness　when　an　argument　so　vital　may　be　employed　on



one　side；　but　not　on　the　other。　And　in　point　of　fact；　when　law　or



public　feeling　do　not　permit　the　truth　of　an　opinion　to　be　disputed；



they　are　just　as　little　tolerant　of　a　denial　of　its　usefulness。　The



utmost　they　allow　is　an　extenuation　of　its　absolute　necessity；　or　of



the　positive　guilt　of　rejecting　it。



　　In　order　more　fully　to　illustrate　the　mischief　of　denying　a



hearing　to　opinions　because　we；　in　our　own　judgment；　have　condemned



them；　it　will　be　desirable　to　fix　down　the　discussion　to　a　concrete



case；　and　I　choose；　by　preference；　the　cases　which　are　least



favourable　to　me…　in　which　the　argument　against　freedom　of　opinion；



both　on　the　score　of　truth　and　on　that　of　utility；　is　considered　the



strongest。　Let　the　opinions　impugned　be　the　belief　in　a　God　and　in　a



future　state；　or　any　of　the　commonly　received　doctrines　of　morality。



To　fight　the　battle　on　such　ground　gives　a　great　advantage　to　an



unfair　antagonist；　since　he　will　be　sure　to　say　（and　many　who　have



no　desire　to　be　unfair　will　say　it　internally）；　Are　these　the



doctrines　which　you　do　not　deem　sufficiently　certain　to　be　taken　under



the　protection　of　law？　Is　the　belief　in　a　God　one　of　the　opinions　to



feel　sure　of　which　you　hold　to　be　assuming　infallibility？　But　I　must



be　permitted　to　observe；　that　it　is　not　the　feeling　sure　of　a　doctrine



（be　it　what　it　may）　which　I　call　an　assumption　of　infallibility。　It　is



the　undertaking　to　decide　that　question　for　others；　without　allowing



them　to　hear　what　can　be　said　on　the　contrary　side。　And　I　denounce　and



reprobate　this　pretension　not　the　less；　if　put　forth　on　the　side　of　my



most　solemn　convictions。　However　positive　any　one's　persuasion　may　be；



not　only　of　the　falsity　but　of　the　pernicious　consequences…　not　only



of　the　pernicious　consequences；　but　（to　adopt　expressions　which　I



altogether　condemn）　the　immorality　and　impiety　of　an　opinion；　yet



if；　in　pursuance　of　that　private　judgment；　though　backed　by　the　public



judgment　of　his　country　or　his　contemporaries；　he　prevents　the　opinion



from　being　heard　in　its　defence；　he　assumes　infallibility。　And　so



far　from　the　assumption　being　less　objectionable　or　less　dangerous



because　the　opinion　is　called　immoral　or　impious；　this　is　the　case



of　all　others　in　which　it　is　most　fatal。　These　are　exactly　the



occasions　on　which　the　men　of　one　generation　commit　those　dreadful



mistakes　which　excite　the　astonishment　and　horror　of　posterity。　It



is　among　such　that　we　find　the　instances　memorable　in　history；　when



the　arm　of　the　law　has　been　employed　to　root　out　the　best　men　and



the　noblest　doctrines；　with　deplorable　success　as　to　the　men；　though



some　of　the　doctrines　have　survived　to　be　（as　if　in　mockery）　invoked



in　defence　of　similar　conduct　towards　those　who　dissent　from　them；



or　from　their　received　interpretation。



　　Mankind　can　hardly　be　too　often　reminded；　that　there　was　once　a



man　named　Socrates；　between　whom　and　the　legal　authorities　and



public　opinion　of　his　time　there　took　place　a　memorable　collision。



Born　in　an　age　and　country　abounding　in　individual　greatness；　this　man



has　been　handed　down　to　us　by　those　who　best　knew　both　him　and　the



age；　as　the　most　virtuous　man　in　it；　while　we　know　him　as　the　head　and



prototype　of　all　subsequent　teachers　of　virtue；　the　source　equally



of　the　lofty　inspiration　of　Plato　and　the　judicious　utilitarianism



of　Aristotle；　〃i　mastri　di　color　che　sanno；〃　the　two　headsprings　of



ethical　as　of　all　other　philosophy。　This　acknowledged　master　of　all



the　eminent　thinkers　who　have　since　lived…　whose　fame；　still　growing



after　more　than　two　thousand　years；　all　but　outweighs　the　whole



remainder　of　the　names　which　make　his　native　city　illustrious…　was



put　to　death　by　his　countrymen；　after　a　judicial　conviction；　for



impiety　and　immorality。　Impiety；　in　denying　the　gods　recognised　by　the



State；　indeed　his　accuser　asserted　（see　the　Apologia）　that　he　believed



in　no　gods　at　all。　Immorality；　in　being；　by　his　doctrines　and



instructions；　a　〃corruptor　of　youth。〃　Of　these　charges　the　tribunal；



there　is　every　ground　for　believing；　honestly　found　him　guilty；　and



condemned　the　man　who　probably　of　all　then　born　had　deserved　best　of



mankind　to　be　put　to　death　as　a　criminal。



　　To　pass　from　this　to　the　only　other　instance　of　judicial　iniquity；



the　mention　of　which；　after　the　condemnation　of　Socrates；　would　not　be



an　anti…climax：　the　event　which　took　place　on　Calvary　rather　more　than



eighteen　hundred　years　ago。　The　man　who　left　on　the　memory　of　those



who　witnessed　his　life　and　conversation　such　an　impression　of　his



moral　grandeur　that　eighteen　subsequent　centuries　have　done　homage



to　him　as　the　Almighty　in　person；　was　ignominiously　put　to　death；　as



what？　As　a　blasphemer。　Men　did　not　merely　mistake　their　benefactor；



they　mistook　him　for　the　exact　contrary　of　what　he　was；　and　treated



him　as　that　prodigy　of　impiety　which　they　themselves　are　now　held　to



be　for　their　treatment　of　him。　The　feelings　with　which　mankind　now



regard　these　lamentable　transactions；　especially　the　later　of　the　two；



render　them　extremely　unjust　in　their　judgment　of　the　unhappy



actors。　These　were；　to　all　appearance；　not　bad　men…　not　worse　than



men　commonly　are；　but　rather　the　contrary；　men　who　possessed　in　a



full；　or　somewhat　more　than　a　full　measure；　the　religious；　moral；



and　patriotic　feelings　of　their　time　and　people：　the　very　kind　of



men　who；　in　all　times；　our　own　included；　have　every　chance　of



passing　through　life　blameless　and　respected。　The　high…priest　who　rent



his　garments　when　the　words　were　pronounced；　which；　according　to　all



the　ideas　of　his　country；　constituted　the　blackest　guilt；　was　in　all



probability　quite　as　sincere　in　his　horror　and　indignation　as　the



generality　of　respectable　and　pious　men　now　are　in　the　religious　and



moral　sentiments　they　profess；　and　most　of　those　who　now　shudder　at



his　conduct；　if　they　had　lived　in　his　time；　and　been　born　Jews；



would　have　acted　precisely　as　he　did。　Orthodox　Christians　who　are



tempted　to　think　that　those　who　stoned　to　death　the　first　martyrs　must



have　been　worse　men　than　they　themselves　are；　ought　to　remember　that



one　of　those　persecutors　was　Saint　Paul。



　　Let　us　add　one　more　example；　the　most　striking　of　all；　if　the



impressiveness　of　an　error　is　measured　by　the　wisdom　and　virtue　of　him



who　falls　into　it。　If　ever　any　one；　possessed　of　power；　had　grounds



for　thinking　himself　the　best　and　most　enlightened　among　his



contemporaries；　it　was　the　Emperor　Marcus　Aurelius。　Absolute　monarch



of　the　whole　civilised　world；　he　preserved　through　life　not　only　the



most　unblemished　justice；　but　what　was　less　to　be　expected　from　his



Stoical　breeding；　the　tenderest　heart。　The　few　failings　which　are



attributed　to　him　were　all　on　the　side　of　indulgence：　while　his



writings；　the　highest　ethical　product　of　the　ancient　mind；　differ



scarcely　perceptibly；　if　they　differ　at　all；　from　the　most



characteristic　teachings　of　Christ。　This　man；　a　better　Christian　in



all　but　the　dogmatic　sense　of　the　word　than　almost　any　of　the



ostensibly　Christian　sovereigns　who　have　since　reigned；　persecuted



Christianity。　Placed　at　the　summit　of　all　the　previous　attainments



of　humanity；　with　an　open；　unfettered　intellect；　and　a　character　which



led　him　of　himself　to　embody　in　his　moral　writings　the　Christian



ideal；　he　yet　failed　to　see　that　Christianity　was　to　be　a　good　and　not



an　evil　to　the　world；　with　his　duties　to　which　he　was　so　deeply



penetrated。　Existing　society　he　knew　to　be　in　a　deplorable　state。



But　such　as　it　was；　he　saw；　or　thought　he　saw；　that　it　was　held



together；　and　prevented　from　being　worse；　by　belief　and　reverence　of



the　received　divinities。　As　a　ruler　of　mankind；　he　deemed　it　his



duty　not　to　suffer　society　to　fall　in　pieces；　and　saw　not　how；　if



its　existing　ties　were　removed；　any　others　could　be　formed　which　could



again　knit　it　together。　The　new　religion　openly　aimed　at　dissolving



these　ties：　unless；　therefore；　it　was　his　duty　to　adopt　that　religion；



it　seemed　to　be　his　duty　to　put　it　down。　Inasmuch　then　as　the　theology



of　Christianity　did　not　appear　to　him　true　or　of　divine　origin；



inasmuch　as　this　strange　history　of　a　crucified　God　was　not　credible



to　him；　and　a　system　which　purported　to　rest　entirely　upon　a



foundation　to　him　so　wholly　unbelievable；　could　not　be　foreseen　by　him



to　be　that　renovating　agency　which；　after　all　abatements；　it　has　in



fact　proved　to　be；　the　gentlest　and　most　amiable　of　philosophers　and



rulers；　under　a　solemn　sense　of　duty；　authorised　the　persecution　of



Christianity。



　　To　my　mind　this　is　one　of　the　most　tragical　facts　in　all　history。　It



is　a　bitter　thought；　how　different　a　thing　the　Christianity　of　the



world　might　have　been；　if　the　Christian　faith　had　been　adopted　as



the　religion　of　the　empire　under　the　auspices　of　Marcus　Aurelius



instead　of　those　of　Constantine。　But　it　would　be　equally　unjust　to　him



and　false　to　truth　to　deny；　that　no　one　plea　which　can　be　urged　for



punishing　anti…Christian　teaching　was　wanting　to　Marcus　Aurelius　for



punish