第42章

eachofwhichmaybedesirableintherightplace——butthewayinwhichtheyarecombinedintheconcreteBarnwell。Noquality，therefore，canbetakenassimplyself-regarding，foritispreciselythewholecharacterwhichistheobjectofmymoraljudgmentoftheindividual。IhavespokenoftheinadequaterecognitionofthistruthbyBenthamandJamesMill。ItmakesJ。

S。Mill’scriterioninapplicabletothequestionofmoralinterference。lf，asheargues，wearetoimpressourmoralstandarduponothers，wecannotmakethedistinction；forourstandardimpliesessentiallyanestimateofthebalanceofalltheman’squalities，thosewhichprimarilyaffecthimselfasmuchasthosewhichprimarilyaffectothers。Hereisthevitaldistinctionbetweenthelegalandthemoralquestion，andthecharacteristicdefectoftheexternalviewofmorality。Keeping，however，tothepurelylegalquestion，wherethecriterioniscomparativelyplain，wehaveotherdifficulties。WeareonlytopunishBarnwellasanactual，notasapotential，murderer。Weshouldletamantryany’experimentinliving’solongasitsfailurewillaffecthimselfonly，or，rather，himselfprimarily，fornoactionisreally’isolated。’Weare，saysMill，toputupwith’contingent’or’constructive’injuryforthesakeof’thegreatergoodofhumanfreedom。’(57*)’Society，’heurges，cannotcomplainoferrorsforwhichitisresponsible。Ithas’absolutepower’overallitsmembersintheirinfancy，andcouldalwaysmakethenextgenerationalittlebetterthanthelast。Why，then，interferebythecoarsemethodsofpunishmenttosuppresswhatisnotdirectlyinjurioustoitself？Thestrongest，however，ofallreasonsagainstinterference，accordingtohim，isthatitgenerallyinterfereswronglyandinthewrongplace。Inproofofthishereferstovariouscasesofreligiouspersecution：toPuritanicallawsagainstharmlessrecreation：toSocialistlawsagainstthefreedomtolabour：tolawsagainstintemperanceandonbehalfofSundayobservance：and，generally，tolawsembodyingthe’tyrannyofthemajority。’Wemayadmitthebadnessofsuchlegislation；butwhatisthecriterionbywhichwearetodecideitsbadnessorgoodness？Isitthatinsuchcasesthelegislatorisusurpingtheprovinceofthemoralist？thatheistryingtosuppresssymptomswhenthecausesarebeyondhispower，andenforcingnotvirtuebuthypocrisy？Orisitthathereallyoughttobeindifferentinregardtothemoralruleswhichareprimarilyself-regarding——toleaveprudence，forexample，totakecareofitselfortobeimpressedbypurelynaturalpenalties；andtobeindifferenttovice，drunkenness，orsexualirregularities，exceptbysuppressingthecrimeswhichincidentallyresult？Millendeavourstoadheretohiscriterion，buthassomedifficultyinreconcilingittohispracticalconclusions。

Millholds’society’tobeomnipotentovertheyoung。Ithasnorighttocomplainofthecharacterswhichithasitselfconcurredinproducing。lfthisbeso，canitbeindifferenttomorality？Indeed，Milldistinguisheshimselffromothersofhisschoolpreciselybyemphasisingtheeducationalefficiencyofthestate。Institutions，accordingtohim，arethetoolsbywhichthehumanwill——thewillofthesovereign——mouldsthecharacteroftherace。Mill’swholeaimineconomicquestionsistoencourageprudence，self-reliance，andenergy。Hewishesthestatetointerferetostrengthenandenlighten；andtopromoteanequalityofpropertywhichwillraisethestandardoflifeanddiscouragewastefulluxury。Whatisthisbuttostimulatecertainmoralcreedsandtodiscouragecertain’experimentsinliving’？

Howcansopowerfulanagencyaffectcharacterwithoutaffectingmorals——self-regardingorextra-regarding？Thedifficultycomesoutcuriouslyinhislastchapter。Hehasrecoursetoadexterouscasuistrytojustifymeasureswhichhaveanobviousmoralsignificance。Arewetolegislatewithaviewtodiminishingdrunkenness？No：butwemayputdrunkardsunderspecialrestrictionswhentheyhaveoncebeenledtoviolence。Weshouldnottaxstimulantssimplyinordertosuppressdrunkenness；but，aswehavetotaxinanycase，wemaysoarrangetaxationastodiscouragetheconsumptionofinjuriouscommodities。Maywesuppressgamblingorfornication？No：butwemayperhapsseeourwaytosuppressingpublicgambling-housesorbrothels，becausewemayforbidsolicitation