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！
individual here and there； is that of religious belief： a case
instructive in many ways； and not least so as forming a most
striking instance of the fallibility of what is called the moral
sense： for the odium theologicum； in a sincere bigot； is one of the
most unequivocal cases of moral feeling。 Those who first broke the
yoke of what called itself the Universal Church； were in general as
little willing to permit difference of religious opinion as that
church itself。 But when the heat of the conflict was over； without
giving a complete victory to any party； and each church or sect was
reduced to limit its hopes to retaining possession of the ground it
already occupied； minorities； seeing that they had no chance of
becoming majorities； were under the necessity of pleading to those
whom they could not convert； for permission to differ。 It is
accordingly on this battle field； almost solely； that the rights of
the individual against society have been asserted on broad grounds
of principle； and the claim of society to exercise authority over
dissentients openly controverted。 The great writers to whom the
world owes what religious liberty it possesses； have mostly asserted
freedom of conscience as an indefeasible right； and denied
absolutely that a human being is accountable to others for his
religious belief。 Yet so natural to mankind is intolerance in whatever
they really care about； that religious freedom has hardly anywhere
been practically realised； except where religious indifference；
which dislikes to have its peace disturbed by theological quarrels；
has added its weight to the scale。 In the minds of almost all
religious persons； even in the most tolerant countries； the duty of
toleration is admitted with tacit reserves。 One person will bear
with dissent in matters of church government； but not of dogma；
another can tolerate everybody； short of a Papist or a Unitarian；
another every one who believes in revealed religion； a few extend
their charity a little further； but stop at the belief in a God and in
a future state。 Wherever the sentiment of the majority is still
genuine and intense； it is found to have abated little of its claim to
be obeyed。
In England； from the peculiar circumstances of our political
history； though the yoke of opinion is perhaps heavier； that of law is
lighter； than in most other countries of Europe； and there is
considerable jealousy of direct interference； by the legislative or
the executive power； with private conduct； not so much from any just
regard for the independence of the individual； as from the still
subsisting habit of looking on the government as representing an
opposite interest to the public。 The majority have not yet learnt to
feel the power of the government their power； or its opinions their
opinions。 When they do so； individual liberty will probably be as much
exposed to invasion from the government； as it already is from
public opinion。 But； as yet； there is a considerable amount of feeling
ready to be called forth against any attempt of the law to control
individuals in things in which they have not hitherto been
accustomed to be controlled by it； and this with very little
discrimination as to whether the matter is； or is not； within the
legitimate sphere of legal control； insomuch that the feeling；
highly salutary on the whole； is perhaps quite as often misplaced as
well grounded in the particular instances of its application。 There
is； in fact； no recognised principle by which the propriety or
impropriety of government interference is customarily tested。 People
decide according to their personal preferences。 Some； whenever they
see any good to be done； or evil to be remedied； would willingly
instigate the government to undertake the business； while others
prefer to bear almost any amount of social evil； rather than add one
to the departments of human interests amenable to governmental
control。 And men range themselves on one or the other side in any
particular case； according to this general direction of their
sentiments； or according to the degree of interest which they feel
in the particular thing which it is proposed that the government
should do； or according to the belief they entertain that the
government would； or would not； do it in the manner they prefer； but
very rarely on account of any opinion to which they consistently
adhere； as to what things are fit to be done by a government。 And it
seems to me that in consequence of this absence of rule or
principle； one side is at present as of wrong as the other； the
interference of government is； with about equal frequency；
improperly invoked and improperly condemned。
The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle；
as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the
individual in the way of compulsion and control； whether the means
used be physical force in the form of legal penalties； or the moral
coercion of public opinion。 That principle is； that the sole end for
which mankind are warranted； individually or collectively； in
interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number； is
self…protection。 That the only purpose for which power can be
rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community； against
his will； is to prevent harm to others。 His own good； either
physical or moral； is not a sufficient warrant。 He cannot rightfully
be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to
do so； because it will make him happier； because； in the opinions of
others； to do so would be wise； or even right。 These are good
reasons for remonstrating with him； or reasoning with him； or
persuading him； or entreating him； but not for compelling him； or
visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise。 To justify that；
the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated
to produce evil to some one else。 The only part of the conduct of
any one； for which he is amenable to society； is that which concerns
others。 In the part which merely concerns himself； his independence
is； of right； absolute。 Over himself； over his own body and mind；
the individual is sovereign。
It is； perhaps； hardly necessary to say that this doctrine is
meant to apply only to human beings in the maturity of their
faculties。 We are not speaking of children； or of young persons
below the age which the law may fix as that of manhood or womanhood。
Those who are still in a state to require being taken care of by
others； must be protected against their own actions as well as against
external injury。 For the same reason； we may leave out of
consideration those backward states of society in which the race
itself may be considered as in its nonage。 The early difficulties in
the way of spontaneous progress are so great； that there is seldom any
choice of means for overcoming them； and a ruler full of the spirit of
improvement is warranted in the use of any expedients that will attain
an end； perhaps otherwise unattainable。 Despotism is a legitimate mode
of government in dealing with barbarians； provided the end be their
improvement； and the means justified by actually effecting that end。
Liberty； as a principle； has no application to any state of things
anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being
improved by free and equal discussion。 Until then； there is nothing
for them but implicit obedience to an Akbar or a Charlemagne； if
they are so fortunate as to find one。 But as soon as mankind have
attained the capacity of being guided to their own improvement by
conviction or persuasion （a period long since reached in all nations
with whom we need here concern ourselves）； compulsion； either in the
direct form or in that of pains and penalties for non…compliance； is
no longer admissible as a means to their own good； and justifiable
only for the security of others。
It is proper to state that I forego any advantage which could be
derived to my argument from the idea of abstract right； as a thing
independent of utility。 I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all
ethical questions； but it must be utility in the largest sense；
grounded on the permanent interests of a man as a progressive being。
Those interests； I contend； authorise the subjection of individual
spontaneity to external control； only in respect to those actions of
each； which concern the interest of other people。 If any one does an
act hurtful to others； there is a prima facie case for punishing
him； by law； or； where legal penalties are not safely applicable； by
general disapprobation。 There are also many positive acts for the
benefit of others； which he may rightfully be compell