the man versus the state-第37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！


ng　be　effectually　closed？　　　　　　The　essential　question　raised　is　the　truth　of　the　utilitarian　theory　as　commonly　held；　and　the　answer　here　to　be　given　is　that；　as　commonly　held；　it　is　not　true。　Alike　by　the　statements　of　utilitarian　moralists；　and　by　the　acts　of　politicians　knowingly　or　unknowingly　following　their　lead；　it　is　implied　that　utility　is　to　be　directly　determined　by　simple　inspection　of　the　mediate　facts　and　estimation　of　probable　results。　Whereas；　utilitarianism　as　rightly　understood；　implies　guidance　by　the　general　conclusions　which　analysis　of　experience　yields。　〃Good　and　bad　results　cannot　be　accidental；　but　must　be　necessary　consequences　of　the　constitution　of　things；〃　and　it　is　〃the　business　of　Moral　Science　to　deduce；　from　the　laws　of　life　and　the　conditions　of　existence；　what　kinds　of　action　necessarily　tend　to　produce　happiness；　and　what　kinds　to　produce　unhappiness。〃（32*）　Current　utilitarian　speculation；　like　current　practical　politics；　shows　inadequate　consciousness　of　natural　causation。　The　habitual　thought　is　that；　in　the　absence　of　some　obvious　impediment；　things　can　be　done　this　way　or　that　way；　and　no　question　is　put　whether　there　is　either　agreement　or　conflict　with　the　normal　working　of　things。　　　　　　The　foregoing　discussions　have；　I　think；　shown　that　the　dictates　of　utility；　and；　consequently；　the　proper　actions　of　governments；　are　not　to　be　settled　by　inspection　of　facts　on　the　surface；　and　acceptance　of　their　prima　facie　meanings；　but　are　to　be　settled　by　reference　to；　and　deduction　from；　fundamental　facts。　The　fundamental　facts　to　which　all　rational　judgments　of　utility　must　go　back；　are　the　facts　that　life　consists　in；　and　is　maintained　by；　certain　activities；　and　that　among　men　in　a　society；　these　activities；　necessarily　becoming　mutually　limited；　are　to　be　carried　on　by　each　within　the　limits　thence　arising；　and　not　carried　on　beyond　those　limits：　the　maintenance　of　the　limits　becoming；　by　consequence；　the　function　of　the　agency　which　regulates　society。　If　each；　having　freedom　to　use　his　powers　up　to　the　bounds　fixed　by　the　like　freedom　of　others；　obtains　from　his　fellow…men　as　much　for　his　services　as　they　find　them　worth　in　comparison　with　the　services　of　others　　if　contracts　uniformly　fulfilled　bring　to　each　the　share　thus　determined；　and　he　is　left　secure　in　person　and　possessions　to　satisfy　his　wants　with　the　proceeds；　then　there　is　maintained　the　vital　principle　alike　of　individual　life　and　of　social　life。　Further；　there　is　maintained　the　vital　principle　of　social　progress；　inasmuch　as；　under　such　conditions；　the　individuals　of　most　worth　will　prosper　and　multiply　more　than　those　of　less　worth。　So　that　utility；　not　as　empirically　estimated　but　as　rationally　determined；　enjoins　this　maintenance　of　individual　rights；　and；　by　implication；　negatives　any　course　which　traverses　them。　　　　　　Here；　then；　we　reach　the　ultimate　interdict　against　meddling　legislation。　Reduced　to　its　lowest　terms；　every　proposal　to　interfere　with　citizens'　activities　further　than　by　enforcing　their　mutual　limitations；　is　a　proposal　to　improve　life　by　breaking　through　the　fundamental　conditions　to　life。　When　some　are　prevented　from　buying　beer　that　others　may　be　prevented　from　getting　drunk；　those　who　make　the　law　assume　that　more　good　than　evil　will　result　from　interference　with　the　normal　relation　between　conduct　and　consequences；　alike　in　the　few　ill…regulated　and　the　many　well…regulated。　A　government　which　takes　fractions　of　the　incomes　of　multitudinous　people；　for　the　purpose　of　sending　to　the　colonies　some　who　have　not　prospered　here；　or　for　building　better　industrial　dwellings；　or　for　making　public　libraries　and　public　museums；　etc。；　takes　for　granted　that；　not　only　proximately　but　ultimately；　increased　general　happiness　will　result　from　transgressing　the　essential　requirement　to　general　happiness　the　requirement　that　each　shall　enjoy　all　those　means　to　happiness　which　his　actions；　carried　on　without　aggression；　have　brought　him。　In　other　cases　we　do　not　thus　let　the　mediate　blind　us　to　the　remote。　When　asserting　the　sacredness　of　property　against　private　transgressors；　we　do　not　ask　whether　the　benefit　to　a　hungry　man　who　takes　bread　from　a　baker's　shop；　is　or　is　not　greater　than　the　injury　inflicted　on　the　baker：　we　consider；　not　the　special　effects；　but　the　general　effects　which　arise　if　property　is　insecure。　But　when　the　State　exacts　further　amounts　from　citizens；　or　further　restrains　their　liberties；　we　consider　only　the　direct　and　proximate　effects；　and　ignore　the　indirect　and　distant　effects　which　are　caused　when　these　invasions　of　individual　rights　are　continually　multiplied。　We　do　not　see　that　by　accumulated　small　infractions　of　them；　the　vital　conditions　of　life；　individual　and　social；　come　to　be　so　imperfectly　fulfilled　that　the　life　decays。　　　　　　Yet　the　decay　thus　caused　becomes　manifest　where　the　policy　is　pushed　to　an　extreme。　Any　one　who　studies；　in　the　writings　of　MM。　Taine　and　de　Tocqueville；　the　state　of　things　which　preceded　the　French　Revolution；　will　see　that　the　tremendous　catastrophe　came　about　from　so　excessive　a　regulation　of　men's　actions　in　all　their　details；　and　such　an　enormous　drafting　away　of　the　products　of　their　actions　to　maintain　the　regulating　organization；　that　life　was　fast　becoming　impracticable。　The　empirical　utilitarianism　of　that　day；　like　the　empirical　utilitarianism　of　our　day；　differed　from　rational　utilitarianism　in　this；　that　in　each　successive　case　it　contemplated　only　the　effects　of　particular　interferences　on　the　actions　of　particular　classes　of　men；　and　ignored　the　effects　produced　by　a　multiplicity　of　such　interferences　on　the　lives　of　men　at　large。　And　if　we　ask　what　then　made；　and　what　now　makes；　this　error　possible；　we　find　it　to　be　the　political　superstition　that　governmental　power　is　subject　to　no　restraints。　　　　　　When　that　〃divinity〃　which　〃doth　hedge　a　king；〃　and　which　has　left　a　glamour　around　the　body　inheriting　his　power；　has　quite　died　away　　when　it　begins　to　be　seen　clearly　that；　in　a　popularly…governed　nation；　the　government　is　simply　a　committee　of　management；　it　will　also　be　seen　that　this　committee　of　management　has　no　intrinsic　authority。　The　inevitable　conclusion　will　be　that　its　authority　is　given　by　those　appointing　it；　and　has　just　such　bounds　as　they　choose　to　impose。　Along　with　this　will　go　the　further　conclusion　that　the　laws　it　passes　are　not　in　themselves　sacred；　but　that　whatever　sacredness　they　have；　it　is　entirely　due　to　the　ethical　sanction　　an　ethical　sanction　which；　as　we　find；　is　derivable　from　the　laws　of　human　life　as　carried　on　under　social　conditions。　And　there　will　come　the　corollary　that　when　they　have　not　this　ethical　sanction　they　have　no　sacredness；　and　may　rightly　be　challenged。　　　　　　The　function　of　Liberalism　in　the　past　was　that　of　putting　a　limit　to　the　powers　of　kings。　The　function　of　true　Liberalism　in　the　future　will　be　that　of　putting　a　limit　to　the　powers　of　Parliaments。　

NOTES：

1。　Hobbes；　Collected　Works；　Vol。　iii；　pp。　112…3。

2。　Ibid。；　p。　159。

3。　Ibid。；　p。　130…1。

4。　The　Province　of　Jurisprudence　Determined　（second　edition）；　p。　241。

5。　Fortnightly　Review　in　1880；　vol。　xxvii；　p。　322。

6。　Bentham