a treatise on parents and children-第10部分

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！



the　age　of　21　years　but　of　21　seconds。







The　Risks　of　Ignorance　and　Weakness



The　difficulty　with　children　is　that　they　need　protection　from　risks

they　are　too　young　to　understand；　and　attacks　they　can　neither　avoid

nor　resist。　　You　may　on　academic　grounds　allow　a　child　to　snatch

glowing　coals　from　the　fire　once。　　You　will　not　do　it　twice。　　The

risks　of　liberty　we　must　let　everyone　take；　but　the　risks　of　ignorance

and　self…helplessness　are　another　matter。　　Not　only　children　but

adults　need　protection　from　them。　　At　present　adults　are　often　exposed

to　risks　outside　their　knowledge　or　beyond　their　comprehension　or

powers　of　resistance　or　foresight：　　for　example；　we　have　to　look　on

every　day　at　marriages　or　financial　speculations　that　may　involve　far

worse　consequences　than　burnt　fingers。　　And　just　as　it　is　part　of　the

business　of　adults　to　protect　children；　to　feed　them；　clothe　them；

shelter　them；　and　shift　for　them　in　all　sorts　of　ways　until　they　are

able　to　shift　for　themselves；　it　is　coming　more　and　more　to　be　seen

that　this　is　true　not　only　of　the　relation　between　adults　and

children；　but　between　adults　and　adults。　　We　shall　not　always　look　on

indifferently　at　foolish　marriages　and　financial　speculations；　nor

allow　dead　men　to　control　live　communities　by　ridiculous　wills　and

living　heirs　to　squander　and　ruin　great　estates；　nor　tolerate　a

hundred　other　absurd　liberties　that　we　allow　today　because　we　are　too

lazy　to　find　out　the　proper　way　to　interfere。　　But　the　interference

must　be　regulated　by　some　theory　of　the　individual's　rights。　　Though

the　right　to　live　is　absolute；　it　is　not　unconditional。　　If　a　man　is

unbearably　mischievous；　he　must　be　killed。　　This　is　a　mere　matter　of

necessity；　like　the　killing　of　a　man…eating　tiger　in　a　nursery；　a

venomous　snake　in　the　garden；　or　a　fox　in　the　poultry　yard。　　No

society　could　be　constructed　on　the　assumption　that　such　extermination

is　a　violation　of　the　creature's　right　to　live；　and　therefore　must　not

be　allowed。　　And　then　at　once　arises　the　danger　into　which　morality

has　led　us：　　the　danger　of　persecution。　　One　Christian　spreading　his

doctrines　may　seem　more　mischievous　than　a　dozen　thieves：　　throw　him

therefore　to　the　lions。　　A　lying　or　disobedient　child　may　corrupt　a

whole　generation　and　make　human　Society　impossible：　　therefore　thrash

the　vice　out　of　him。　　And　so　on　until　our　whole　system　of　abortion；

intimidation；　tyranny；　cruelty　and　the　rest　is　in　full　swing　again。







The　Common　Sense　of　Toleration



The　real　safeguard　against　this　is　the　dogma　of　Toleration。　　I　need

not　here　repeat　the　compact　treatise　on　it　which　I　prepared　for　the

Joint　Committee　on　the　Censorship　of　Stage　Plays；　and　prefixed　to　The

Shewing　Up　of　Blanco　Posnet。　　It　must　suffice　now　to　say　that　the

present　must　not　attempt　to　schoolmaster　the　future　by　pretending　to

know　good　from　evil　in　tendency；　or　protect　citizens　against　shocks　to

their　opinions　and　convictions；　moral；　political　or　religious：　　in

other　words　it　must　not　persecute　doctrines　of　any　kind；　or　what　is

called　bad　taste；　and　must　insist　on　all　persons　facing　such　shocks　as

they　face　frosty　weather　or　any　of　the　other　disagreeable；　dangerous；

or　bracing　incidents　of　freedom。　　The　expediency　of　Toleration　has

been　forced　on　us　by　the　fact　that　progressive　enlightenment　depends

on　a　fair　hearing　for　doctrines　which　at　first　appear　seditious；

blasphemous；　and　immoral；　and　which　deeply　shock　people　who　never

think　originally；　thought　being　with　them　merely　a　habit　and　an　echo。

The　deeper　ground　for　Toleration　is　the　nature　of　creation；　which；　as

we　now　know；　proceeds　by　evolution。　　Evolution　finds　its　way　by

experiment；　and　this　finding　of　the　way　varies　according　to　the　stage

of　development　reached；　from　the　blindest　groping　along　the　line　of

least　resistance　to　intellectual　speculation；　with　its　practical

sequel　of　hypothesis　and　experimental　verification；　or　to　observation；

induction；　and　deduction；　or　even　into　so　rapid　and　intuitive　an

integration　of　all　these　processes　in　a　single　brain　that　we　get　the

inspired　guess　of　the　man　of　genius　and　the　desperate　resolution　of

the　teacher　of　new　truths　who　is　first　slain　as　a　blasphemous　apostate

and　then　worshipped　as　a　prophet。



Here　the　law　for　the　child　is　the　same　as　for　the　adult。　　The　high

priest　must　not　rend　his　garments　and　cry　〃Crucify　him〃　when　he　is

shocked：　　the　atheist　must　not　clamor　for　the　suppression　of　Law's

Serious　Call　because　it　has　for　two　centuries　destroyed　the　natural

happiness　of　innumerable　unfortunate　children　by　persuading　their

parents　that　it　is　their　religious　duty　to　be　miserable。　　It；　and　the

Sermon　on　the　Mount；　and　Machiavelli's　Prince；　and　La　Rochefoucauld's

maxims；　and　Hymns　Ancient　and　Modern；　and　De　Glanville's　apologue；　and

Dr。　Watts's　rhymes；　and　Nietzsche's　Gay　Science；　and　Ingersoll's

Mistakes　of　Moses；　and　the　speeches　and　pamphlets　of　the　people　who

want　us　to　make　war　on　Germany；　and　the　Noodle's　Orations　and　articles

of　our　politicians　and　journalists；　must　all　be　tolerated　not　only

because　any　of　them　may　for　all　we　know　be　on　the　right　track　but

because　it　is　in　the　conflict　of　opinion　that　we　win　knowledge　and

wisdom。　　However　terrible　the　wounds　suffered　in　that　conflict；　they

are　better　than　the　barren　peace　of　death　that　follows　when　all　the

combatants　are　slaughtered　or　bound　hand　and　foot。



The　difficulty　at　present　is　that　though　this　necessity　for　Toleration

is　a　law　of　political　science　as　well　established　as　the　law　of

gravitation；　our　rulers　are　never　taught　political　science：　　on　the

contrary；　they　are　taught　in　school　that　the　master　tolerates　nothing

that　is　disagreeable　to　him；　that　ruling　is　simply　being　master；　and

that　the　master's　method　is　the　method　of　violent　punishment。　　And　our

citizens；　all　school　taught；　are　walking　in　the　same　darkness。　　As　I

write　these　lines　the　Home　Secretary　is　explaining　that　a　man　who　has

been　imprisoned　for　blasphemy　must　not　be　released　because　his　remarks

were　painful　to　the　feelings　of　his　pious　fellow　townsmen。　　Now　it

happens　that　this　very　Home　Secretary　has　driven　many　thousands　of　his

fellow　citizens　almost　beside　themselves　by　the　crudity　of　his　notions

of　government；　and　his　simple　inability　to　understand　why　he　should

not　use　and　make　laws　to　torment　and　subdue　people　who　do　not　happen

to　agree　with　him。　　In　a　word；　he　is　not　a　politician；　but　a　grown…up

schoolboy　who　has　at　last　got　a　cane　in　his　hand。　　And　as　all　the　rest

of　us　are　in　the　same　condition　（except　as　to　command　of　the　cane）　the

only　objection　made　to　his　proceedings　takes　the　shape　of　clamorous

demands　that　_he_　should　be　caned　instead　of　being　allowed　to　cane

other　people。







The　Sin　of　Athanasius



It　seems　hopeless。　　Anarchists　are　tempted　to　preach　a　violent　and

implacable　resistance　to　all　law　as　the　only　remedy；　and　the　result　of

that　speedily　is　that　people　welcome　any　tyranny　that　will　rescue　them

from　chaos。　　But　there　is　really　no　need　to　choose　between　anarchy　and

tyranny。　　A　quite　reasonable　state　of　things　is　practicable　if　we

proceed　on　human　assumptions　and　not　on　academic　ones。　　If　adults　will

frankly　give　up　their　claim　to　know　better　than　children　what　the

purposes　of　the　Life　Force　are；　and　treat　the　child　as　an　experiment

like　themselves；　and　possibly　a　more　successful　one；　and　at　the　same

time　relinquish　their　monstrous　parental　claims　to　personal　private

property　in　children；　the　rest　must　be　left　to　common　sense。　　It　is

our　attitude；　our　religion；　that　is　wrong。　　A　good　beginning　might　be

made　by　enacting　that　any　person　dictating　a　piece　of　conduct　to　a

child　or　to　anyone　else　as　the　will　of　God；　or　as　absolutely　right；

should　be　dealt　with　as　a　blasphemer：　　as；　indeed；　guilty　of　the

unpardonable　sin　against　the　Holy　Ghost。　　If　the　penalty　were　death；

it　would　rid　us　at　once　of　that　scourge　of　humanity；　the　amateur　Pope。

As　an　Irish　Protestant；　I　raise　the　cry　of　No　Popery　with　hereditary

zest。　　We　are　overrun　with　Popes。　　From　curates　and　governesses；　who

may　claim　a　sort　of　professional　standing；　to　parents　and　uncles　and

nurserymaids　and　school　teachers　and　wiseacres　generally；　there　are

scores　of　thousands　of　human　insects　groping　through　our　darkness　by

the　feeble　phosphorescence　of　their　own　tails；　yet　ready　at　a　moment's

notice　to　reveal　the　will　of　God　on　every　possible　subject；　to　explain

how　and　why　the　universe　was　made　（in　my　youth　they　added　the　exact

date）　and　the　circumstances　under　which　it　will　cease　to　exist；　to　lay

down　precise　rules　of　right　and　wrong　conduct；　to　discriminate

infallibly　between　virtuous　and　vicious　character；　and　all　this　with

such　certainty　that　they　are　prepared　to　visit　all　the　rigors　of　the

law；　and　all　the　ruinous　penalties　of　social　ostracism　on　people；

however　harmless　their　actions　maybe　who　venture　to　laugh　at　their

monstrous　conceit　or　to　pay　their　assumptions　the　extravagant

compliment　of　criticizing　them。　　As　to　children；　who　shall　say　what

canings　and　birchings　and　terrifyings　and　threats　of　hell　fire　and

impositions　and　humiliations　and　petty　imprisonings　and　sendings　to

bed　and　standing　in　corners　and　the　like　they　have　suffered　because

their　parents　and　guardians　and　teachers　knew　everything　so　much

better　than　Socrates　or　Solon？



It　is　this　ignorant　uppishness　that　does　the　mischief。　　A　stranger　on

the　planet　might　expect　that　its　grotesque　absurdity　would　provoke

enough　ridicule　to　cure　it；　but　unfortunately　quite　the　contrary

happens。　　Just　as　our　ill　health　delivers　us　into　the　hands　of　medical

quacks　and　creates　a　passionate　demand　for　impudent　pretences　that

doctors　can　cure　the　diseases　they　themselves　die　of　daily；　so　our

ignorance　and　helplessness　set　us　clamoring　for　spiritual　and　moral

quacks　who　pretend　that　they　can　save　our　souls　from　their　own

damnation。　　If　a　doctor