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！
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 a
reasonable hope of obtaining。 Such oppositions of interest between
individuals often arise from bad social institutions； but are
unavoidable while those institutions last； and some would be
unavoidable under any institutions。 Whoever succeeds in an overcrowded
profession； or in a competitive examination； whoever is preferred to
another in any contest for an object which both desire； reaps
benefit from the loss of others； from their wasted exertion and
their disappointment。 But it is； by common admission； better for the
general interest of mankind； that persons should pursue their
objects undeterred by this sort of consequences。 In other words；
society admits no right； either legal or moral； in the disappointed
competitors to immunity from this kind of suffering； and feels
called on to interfere； only when means of success have been
employed which it is contrary to the general interest to
permit… namely； fraud or treachery； and force。
Again； trade is a social act。 Whoever undertakes to sell any
description of goods to the public； does what affects the interest
of other persons； and of society in general； and thus his conduct；
in principle； comes within the jurisdiction of society： accordingly；
it was once held to be the duty of governments； in all cases which
were considered of importance； to fix prices； and regulate the
processes of manufacture。 But it is now recognised； though not till
after a long struggle； that both the cheapness and the good quality of
commodities are most effectually provided for by leaving the producers
and sellers perfectly free； under the sole check of equal freedom to
the buyers for supplying themselves elsewhere。 This is the so…called
doctrine of Free Trade； which rests on grounds different from；
though equally solid with； the principle of individual liberty
asserted in this Essay。 Restrictions on trade； or on production for
purposes of trade； are indeed restraints； and all restraint； qua
restraint； is an evil： but the restraints in question affect only that
part of conduct which society is competent to restrain； and are
wrong solely because they do not really produce the results which it
is desired to produce by them。 As the principle of individual
liberty is not involved in the doctrine of Free Trade； so neither is
it in most of the questions which arise respecting the limits of
that doctrine； as； for example； what amount of public control is
admissible for the prevention of fraud by adulteration； how far
sanitary precautions； or arrangements to protect workpeople employed
in dangerous occupations； should be enforced on employers。 Such
questions involve considerations of liberty； only in so far as leaving
people to themselves is always better； caeteris paribus； than
controlling them： but that they may be legitimately controlled for
these ends is in