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！
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 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