Each will receive its proper share, if each has that which more particularly concerns it. To individuality should belong the part of life in which it is chiefly the individual that is interested; to society, the part which chiefly interests society.
Though society is not founded on a contract, and though no good purpose is answered by inventing a contract in order to deduce social obligations from it, every one who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit, and the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest. This conduct consists, first, in not injuring the interests of one another; or rather certain interests, which, either by express legal provision or by tacit understanding, ought to be considered as rights; and secondly1, in each person’s bearing his share (to be fixed2 on some equitable3 principle) of the labors5 and sacrifices incurred6 for defending the society or its members from injury and molestation8. These conditions society is justified9 in enforcing, at all costs to those who endeavor to withhold10 fulfilment. Nor is this all that society may do. The acts of an individual may be hurtful to others, or wanting in due consideration for their welfare, without going the length of violating any of their constituted rights. The offender11 may then be justly punished by opinion, though not by law. As soon as any part of a person’s conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction12 over it, and the question whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering13 with it, becomes open to discussion. But there is no room for entertaining any such question when a person’s conduct affects the interests of no persons besides himself, or needs not affect them unless they like (all the persons concerned being of full age, and the ordinary amount of understanding). In all such cases there should be perfect freedom, legal and social, to do the action and stand the consequences.
It would be a great misunderstanding of this doctrine14, to suppose that it is one of selfish indifference15, which pretends that human beings have no business with each other’s conduct in life, and that they should not concern themselves about the well-doing or well-being16 of one another, unless their own interest is involved. Instead of any diminution17, there is need of a great increase of disinterested18 exertion19 to promote the good of others. But disinterested benevolence20 can find other instruments to persuade people to their good, than whips and scourges21, either of the literal or the metaphorical22 sort. I am the last person to undervalue the self-regarding virtues23; they are only second in importance, if even second, to the social. It is equally the business of education to cultivate both. But even education works by conviction and persuasion24 as well as by compulsion, and it is by the former only that, when the period of education is past, the self-regarding virtues should be inculcated. Human beings owe to each other help to distinguish the better from the worse, and encouragement to choose the former and avoid the latter. They should be forever stimulating25 each other to increased exercise of their higher faculties26, and increased direction of their feelings and aims towards wise instead of foolish, elevating instead of degrading, objects and contemplations. But neither one person, nor any number of persons, is warranted in saying to another human creature of ripe years, that he shall not do with his life for his own benefit what he chooses to do with it. He is the person most interested in his own well-being, the interest which any other person, except in cases of strong personal attachment27, can have in it, is trifling28, compared with that which he himself has; the interest which society has in him individually (except as to his conduct to others) is fractional, and altogether indirect: while, with respect to his own feelings and circumstances, the most ordinary man or woman has means of knowledge immeasurably surpassing those that can be possessed29 by any one else. The interference of society to overrule his judgment31 and purposes in what only regards himself, must be grounded on general presumptions32; which may be altogether wrong, and even if right, are as likely as not to be misapplied to individual cases, by persons no better acquainted with the circumstances of such cases than those are who look at them merely from without. In this department, therefore, of human affairs, Individuality has its proper field of action. In the conduct of human beings towards one another, it is necessary that general rules should for the most part be observed, in order that people may know what they have to expect; but in each person’s own concerns, his individual spontaneity is entitled to free exercise. Considerations to aid his judgment, exhortations34 to strengthen his will, may be offered to him, even obtruded35 on him, by others; but he, himself, is the final judge. All errors which he is likely to commit against advice and warning, are far outweighed36 by the evil of allowing others to constrain37 him to what they deem his good.
I do not mean that the feelings with which a person is regarded by others, ought not to be in any way affected38 by his self-regarding qualities or deficiencies. This is neither possible nor desirable. If he is eminent39 in any of the qualities which conduce to his own good, he is, so far, a proper object of admiration40. He is so much the nearer to the ideal perfection of human nature. If he is grossly deficient41 in those qualities, a sentiment the opposite of admiration will follow. There is a degree of folly42, and a degree of what may be called (though the phrase is not unobjectionable) lowness or depravation of taste, which, though it cannot justify43 doing harm to the person who manifests it, renders him necessarily and properly a subject of distaste, or, in extreme cases, even of contempt: a person could not have the opposite qualities in due strength without entertaining these feelings. Though doing no wrong to any one, a person may so act as to compel us to judge him, and feel to him, as a fool, or as a being of an inferior order: and since this judgment and feeling are a fact which he would prefer to avoid, it is doing him a service to warn him of it beforehand, as of any other disagreeable consequence to which he exposes himself. It would be well, indeed, if this good office were much more freely rendered than the common notions of politeness at present permit, and if one person could honestly point out to another that he thinks him in fault, without being considered unmannerly or presuming. We have a right, also, in various ways, to act upon our unfavorable opinion of any one, not to the oppression of his individuality, but in the exercise of ours. We are not bound, for example, to seek his society; we have a right to avoid it (though not to parade the avoidance), for we have a right to choose the society most acceptable to us. We have a right, and it may be our duty, to caution others against him, if we think his example or conversation likely to have a pernicious effect on those with whom he associates. We may give others a preference over him in optional good offices, except those which tend to his improvement. In these various modes a person may suffer very severe penalties at the hands of others, for faults which directly concern only himself; but he suffers these penalties only in so far as they are the natural, and, as it were, the spontaneous consequences of the faults themselves, not because they are purposely inflicted44 on him for the sake of punishment. A person who shows rashness, obstinacy46, self-conceit — who cannot live within moderate means — who cannot restrain himself from hurtful indulgences — who pursues animal pleasures at the expense of those of feeling and intellect — must expect to be lowered in the opinion of others, and to have a less share of their favorable sentiments, but of this he has no right to complain, unless he has merited their favor by special excellence47 in his social relations, and has thus established a title to their good offices, which is not affected by his demerits towards himself.
What I contend for is, that the inconveniences which are strictly48 inseparable from the unfavorable judgment of others, are the only ones to which a person should ever be subjected for that portion of his conduct and character which concerns his own good, but which does not affect the interests of others in their relations with him. Acts injurious to others require a totally different treatment. Encroachment49 on their rights; infliction50 on them of any loss or damage not justified by his own rights; falsehood or duplicity in dealing51 with them; unfair or ungenerous use of advantages over them; even selfish abstinence from defending them against injury — these are fit objects of moral reprobation52, and, in grave cases, of moral retribution and punishment. And not only these acts, but the dispositions53 which lead to them, are properly immoral55, and fit subjects of disapprobation which may rise to abhorrence56. Cruelty of disposition54; malice57 and ill-nature; that most anti-social and odious58 of all passions, envy; dissimulation59 and insincerity, irascibility on insufficient60 cause, and resentment61 disproportioned to the provocation62; the love of domineering over others; the desire to engross63 more than one’s share of advantages (the πλεονεξια of the Greeks); the pride which derives64 gratification from the abasement65 of others; the egotism which thinks self and its concerns more important than everything else, and decides all doubtful questions in his own favor — these are moral vices66, and constitute a bad and odious moral character: unlike the self-regarding faults previously67 mentioned, which are not properly immoralities, and to whatever pitch they may be carried, do not constitute wickedness. They may be proofs of any amount of folly, or want of personal dignity and self-respect; but they are only a subject of moral reprobation when they involve a breach68 of duty to others, for whose sake the individual is bound to have care for himself. What are called duties to ourselves are not socially obligatory69, unless circumstances render them at the same time duties to others. The term duty to oneself, when it means anything more than prudence70, means self-respect or self-development; and for none of these is any one accountable to his fellow-creatures, because for none of them is it for the good of mankind that he be held accountable to them.
The distinction between the loss of consideration which a person may rightly incur7 by defect of prudence or of personal dignity, and the reprobation which is due to him for an offence against the rights of others, is not a merely nominal71 distinction. It makes a vast difference both in our feelings and in our conduct towards him, whether he displeases72 us in things in which we think we have a right to control him, or in things in which we know that we have not. If he displeases us, we may express our distaste, and we may stand aloof73 from a person as well as from a thing that displeases us; but we shall not therefore feel called on to make his life uncomfortable. We shall reflect that he already bears, or will bear, the whole penalty of his error; if he spoils his life by mismanagement, we shall not, for that reason, desire to spoil it still further: instead of wishing to punish him, we shall rather endeavor to alleviate74 his punishment, by showing him how he may avoid or cure the evils his conduct tends to bring upon him. He may be to us an object of pity, perhaps of dislike, but not of anger or resentment; we shall not treat him like an enemy of society: the worst we shall think ourselves justified in doing is leaving him to himself, if we do not interfere30 benevolently75 by showing interest or concern for him. It is far otherwise if he has infringed76 the rules necessary for the protection of his fellow-creatures, individually or collectively. The evil consequences of his acts do not then fall on himself, but on others; and society, as the protector of all its members, must retaliate77 on him; must inflict45 pain on him for the express purpose of punishment, and must take care that it be sufficiently78 severe. In the one case, he is an offender at our bar, and we are called on not only to sit in judgment on him, but, in one shape or another, to execute our own sentence: in the other case, it is not our part to inflict any suffering on him, except what may incidentally follow from our using the same liberty in the regulation of our own affairs, which we allow to him in his.
The distinction here pointed79 out between the part of a person’s life which concerns only himself, and that which concerns others, many persons will refuse to admit. How (it may be asked) can any part of the conduct of a member of society be a matter of indifference to the other members? No person is an entirely80 isolated81 being; it is impossible for a person to do anything seriously or permanently82 hurtful to himself, without mischief83 reaching at least to his near connections, and often far beyond them. If he injures his property, he does harm to those who directly or indirectly84 derived85 support from it, and usually diminishes, by a greater or less amount, the general resources of the community. If he deteriorates86 his bodily or mental faculties, he not only brings evil upon all who depended on him for any portion of their happiness, but disqualifies himself for rendering88 the services which he owes to his fellow-creatures generally; perhaps becomes a burden on their affection or benevolence; and if such conduct were very frequent, hardly any offence that is committed would detract more from the general sum of good. Finally, if by his vices or follies89 a person does no direct harm to others, he is nevertheless (it may be said) injurious by his example; and ought to be compelled to control himself, for the sake of those whom the sight or knowledge of his conduct might corrupt90 or mislead.
And even (it will be added) if the consequences of misconduct could be confined to the vicious or thoughtless individual, ought society to abandon to their own guidance those who are manifestly unfit for it? If protection against themselves is confessedly due to children and persons under age, is not society equally bound to afford it to persons of mature years who are equally incapable91 of self-government? If gambling92, or drunkenness, or incontinence, or idleness, or uncleanliness, are as injurious to happiness, and as great a hindrance93 to improvement, as many or most of the acts prohibited by law, why (it may be asked) should not law, so far as is consistent with practicability and social convenience, endeavor to repress these also? And as a supplement to the unavoidable imperfections of law, ought not opinion at least to organize a powerful police against these vices, and visit rigidly94 with social penalties those who are known to practise them? There is no question here (it may be said) about restricting individuality, or impeding95 the trial of new and original experiments in living. The only things it is sought to prevent are things which have been tried and condemned96 from the beginning of the world until now; things which experience has shown not to be useful or suitable to any person’s individuality. There must be some length of time and amount of experience, after which a moral or prudential truth may be regarded as established, and it is merely desired to prevent generation after generation from falling over the same precipice98 which has been fatal to their predecessors99.
I fully100 admit that the mischief which a person does to himself, may seriously affect, both through their sympathies and their interests, those nearly connected with him, and in a minor101 degree, society at large. When, by conduct of this sort, a person is led to violate a distinct and assignable obligation to any other person or persons, the case is taken out of the self-regarding class, and becomes amenable102 to moral disapprobation in the proper sense of the term. If, for example, a man, through intemperance103 or extravagance, becomes unable to pay his debts, or, having undertaken the moral responsibility of a family, becomes from the same cause incapable of supporting or educating them, he is deservedly reprobated, and might be justly punished; but it is for the breach of duty to his family or creditors104, not for the extravagence. If the resources which ought to have been devoted105 to them, had been diverted from them for the most prudent97 investment, the moral culpability106 would have been the same. George Barnwell murdered his uncle to get money for his mistress, but if he had done it to set himself up in business, he would equally have been hanged. Again, in the frequent case of a man who causes grief to his family by addiction107 to bad habits, he deserves reproach for his unkindness or ingratitude108; but so he may for cultivating habits not in themselves vicious, if they are painful to those with whom he passes his life, or who from personal ties are dependent on him for their comfort. Whoever fails in the consideration generally due to the interests and feelings of others, not being compelled by some more imperative109 duty, or justified by allowable self-preference, is a subject of moral disapprobation for that failure, but not for the cause of it, nor for the errors, merely personal to himself, which may have remotely led to it. In like manner, when a person disables himself, by conduct purely110 self-regarding, from the performance of some definite duty incumbent111 on him to the public, he is guilty of a social offence. No person ought to be punished simply for being drunk; but a soldier or a policeman should be punished for being drunk on duty. Whenever, in short, there is a definite damage, or a definite risk of damage, either to an individual or to the public, the case is taken out of the province of liberty, and placed in that of morality or law.
But with regard to the merely contingent112 or, as it may be called, constructive113 injury which a person causes to society, by conduct which neither violates any specific duty to the public, nor occasions perceptible hurt to any assignable individual except himself; the inconvenience is one which society can afford to bear, for the sake of the greater good of human freedom. If grown persons are to be punished for not taking proper care of themselves, I would rather it were for their own sake, than under pretence114 of preventing them from impairing115 their capacity of rendering to society benefits which society does not pretend it has a right to exact. But I cannot consent to argue the point as if society had no means of bringing its weaker members up to its ordinary standard of rational conduct, except waiting till they do something irrational116, and then punishing them, legally or morally, for it. Society has had absolute power over them during all the early portion of their existence: it has had the whole period of childhood and nonage in which to try whether it could make them capable of rational conduct in life. The existing generation is master both of the training and the entire circumstances of the generation to come; it cannot indeed make them perfectly117 wise and good, because it is itself so lamentably118 deficient in goodness and wisdom; and its best efforts are not always, in individual cases, its most successful ones; but it is perfectly well able to make the rising generation, as a whole, as good as, and a little better than, itself. If society lets any considerable number of its members grow up mere33 children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives120, society has itself to blame for the consequences. Armed not only with all the powers of education, but with the ascendency which the authority of a received opinion always exercises over the minds who are least fitted to judge for themselves; and aided by the natural penalties which cannot be prevented from falling on those who incur the distaste or the contempt of those who know them; let not society pretend that it needs, besides all this, the power to issue commands and enforce obedience121 in the personal concerns of individuals, in which, on all principles of justice and policy, the decision ought to rest with those who are to abide122 the consequences. Nor is there anything which tends more to discredit123 and frustrate124 the better means of influencing conduct, than a resort to the worse. If there be among those whom it is attempted to coerce125 into prudence or temperance, any of the material of which vigorous and independent characters are made, they will infallibly rebel against the yoke126. No such person will ever feel that others have a right to control him in his concerns, such as they have to prevent him from injuring them in theirs; and it easily comes to be considered a mark of spirit and courage to fly in the face of such usurped127 authority, and do with ostentation128 the exact opposite of what it enjoins129; as in the fashion of grossness which succeeded, in the time of Charles II., to the fanatical moral intolerance of the Puritans. With respect to what is said of the necessity of protecting society from the bad example set to others by the vicious or the self-indulgent; it is true that bad example may have a pernicious effect, especially the example of doing wrong to others with impunity131 to the wrong-doer. But we are now speaking of conduct which, while it does no wrong to others, is supposed to do great harm to the agent himself: and I do not see how those who believe this, can think otherwise than that the example, on the whole, must be more salutary than hurtful, since, if it displays the misconduct, it displays also the painful or degrading consequences which, if the conduct is justly censured133, must be supposed to be in all or most cases attendant on it.
But the strongest of all the arguments against the interference of the public with purely personal conduct, is that when it does interfere, the odds134 are that it interferes135 wrongly, and in the wrong place. On questions of social morality, of duty to others, the opinion of the public, that is, of an overruling majority, though often wrong, is likely to be still oftener right; because on such questions they are only required to judge of their own interests; of the manner in which some mode of conduct, if allowed to be practised, would affect themselves. But the opinion of a similar majority, imposed as a law on the minority, on questions of self-regarding conduct, is quite as likely to be wrong as right; for in these cases public opinion means, at the best, some people’s opinion of what is good or bad for other people; while very often it does not even mean that; the public, with the most perfect indifference, passing over the pleasure or convenience of those whose conduct they censure132, and considering only their own preference. There are many who consider as an injury to themselves any conduct which they have a distaste for, and resent it as an outrage136 to their feelings; as a religious bigot, when charged with disregarding the religious feelings of others, has been known to retort that they disregard his feelings, by persisting in their abominable137 worship or creed138. But there is no parity139 between the feeling of a person for his own opinion, and the feeling of another who is offended at his holding it; no more than between the desire of a thief to take a purse, and the desire of the right owner to keep it. And a person’s taste is as much his own peculiar140 concern as his opinion or his purse. It is easy for any one to imagine an ideal public, which leaves the freedom and choice of individuals in all uncertain matters undisturbed, and only requires them to abstain141 from modes of conduct which universal experience has condemned. But where has there been seen a public which set any such limit to its censorship? or when does the public trouble itself about universal experience. In its interferences with personal conduct it is seldom thinking of anything but the enormity of acting142 or feeling differently from itself; and this standard of judgment, thinly disguised, is held up to mankind as the dictate143 of religion and philosophy, by nine tenths of all moralists and speculative144 writers. These teach that things are right because they are right; because we feel them to be so. They tell us to search in our own minds and hearts for laws of conduct binding145 on ourselves and on all others. What can the poor public do but apply these instructions, and make their own personal feelings of good and evil, if they are tolerably unanimous in them, obligatory on all the world?
The evil here pointed out is not one which exists only in theory; and it may perhaps be expected that I should specify146 the instances in which the public of this age and country improperly147 invests its own preferences with the character of moral laws. I am not writing an essay on the aberrations148 of existing moral feeling. That is too weighty a subject to be discussed parenthetically, and by way of illustration. Yet examples are necessary, to show that the principle I maintain is of serious and practical moment, and that I am not endeavoring to erect149 a barrier against imaginary evils. And it is not difficult to show, by abundant instances, that to extend the bounds of what may be called moral police, until it encroaches on the most unquestionably legitimate150 liberty of the individual, is one of the most universal of all human propensities151.
As a first instance, consider the antipathies152 which men cherish on no better grounds than that persons whose religious opinions are different from theirs, do not practise their religious observances, especially their religious abstinences. To cite a rather trivial example, nothing in the creed or practice of Christians154 does more to envenom the hatred155 of Mahomedans against them, than the fact of their eating pork. There are few acts which Christians and Europeans regard with more unaffected disgust, than Mussulmans regard this particular mode of satisfying hunger. It is, in the first place, an offence against their religion; but this circumstance by no means explains either the degree or the kind of their repugnance156; for wine also is forbidden by their religion, and to partake of it is by all Mussulmans accounted wrong, but not disgusting. Their aversion to the flesh of the “unclean beast” is, on the contrary, of that peculiar character, resembling an instinctive157 antipathy158, which the idea of uncleanness, when once it thoroughly159 sinks into the feelings, seems always to excite even in those whose personal habits are anything but scrupulously160 cleanly and of which the sentiment of religious impurity161, so intense in the Hindoos, is a remarkable162 example. Suppose now that in a people, of whom the majority were Mussulmans, that majority should insist upon not permitting pork to be eaten within the limits of the country. This would be nothing new in Mahomedan countries.1 Would it be a legitimate exercise of the moral authority of public opinion? and if not, why not? The practice is really revolting to such a public. They also sincerely think that it is forbidden and abhorred163 by the Deity164. Neither could the prohibition165 be censured as religious persecution166. It might be religious in its origin, but it would not be persecution for religion, since nobody’s religion makes it a duty to eat pork. The only tenable ground of condemnation167 would be, that with the personal tastes and self-regarding concerns of individuals the public has no business to interfere.
To come somewhat nearer home: the majority of Spaniards consider it a gross impiety168, offensive in the highest degree to the Supreme169 Being, to worship him in any other manner than the Roman Catholic; and no other public worship is lawful170 on Spanish soil. The people of all Southern Europe look upon a married clergy171 as not only irreligious, but unchaste, indecent, gross, disgusting. What do Protestants think of these perfectly sincere feelings, and of the attempt to enforce them against non-Catholics? Yet, if mankind are justified in interfering with each other’s liberty in things which do not concern the interests of others, on what principle is it possible consistently to exclude these cases? or who can blame people for desiring to suppress what they regard as a scandal in the sight of God and man?
No stronger case can be shown for prohibiting anything which is regarded as a personal immorality172, than is made out for suppressing these practices in the eyes of those who regard them as impieties173; and unless we are willing to adopt the logic174 of persecutors, and to say that we may persecute175 others because we are right, and that they must not persecute us because they are wrong, we must beware of admitting a principle of which we should resent as a gross injustice176 the application to ourselves.
The preceding instances may be objected to, although unreasonably177, as drawn178 from contingencies179 impossible among us: opinion, in this country, not being likely to enforce abstinence from meats, or to interfere with people for worshipping, and for either marrying or not marrying, according to their creed or inclination180. The next example, however, shall be taken from an interference with liberty which we have by no means passed all danger of. Wherever the Puritans have been sufficiently powerful, as in New England, and in Great Britain at the time of the Commonwealth181, they have endeavored, with considerable success, to put down all public, and nearly all private, amusements: especially music, dancing, public games, or other assemblages for purposes of diversion, and the theatre. There are still in this country large bodies of persons by whose notions of morality and religion these recreations are condemned; and those persons belonging chiefly to the middle class, who are the ascendant power in the present social and political condition of the kingdom, it is by no means impossible that persons of these sentiments may at some time or other command a majority in Parliament. How will the remaining portion of the community like to have the amusements that shall be permitted to them regulated by the religious and moral sentiments of the stricter Calvinists and Methodists? Would they not, with considerable peremptoriness182, desire these intrusively183 pious184 members of society to mind their own business? This is precisely185 what should be said to every government and every public, who have the pretension186 that no person shall enjoy any pleasure which they think wrong. But if the principle of the pretension be admitted, no one can reasonably object to its being acted on in the sense of the majority, or other preponderating187 power in the country; and all persons must be ready to conform to the idea of a Christian153 commonwealth, as understood by the early settlers in New England, if a religious profession similar to theirs should ever succeed in regaining189 its lost ground, as religions supposed to be declining have so often been known to do.
To imagine another contingency190, perhaps more likely to be realized than the one last mentioned. There is confessedly a strong tendency in the modern world towards a democratic constitution of society, accompanied or not by popular political institutions. It is affirmed that in the country where this tendency is most completely realized — where both society and the government are most democratic — the United States — the feeling of the majority, to whom any appearance of a more showy or costly191 style of living than they can hope to rival is disagreeable, operates as a tolerably effectual sumptuary law, and that in many parts of the union it is really difficult for a person possessing a very large income, to find any mode of spending it, which will not incur popular disapprobation. Though such statements as these are doubtless much exaggerated as a representation of existing facts, the state of things they describe is not only a conceivable and possible, but a probable result of democratic feeling, combined with the notion that the public has a right to a veto on the manner in which individuals shall spend their incomes. We have only further to suppose a considerable diffusion192 of Socialist193 opinions, and it may become infamous194 in the eyes of the majority to possess more property than some very small amount, or any income not earned by manual labor4. Opinions similar in principle to these, already prevail widely among the artisan class, and weigh oppressively on those who are amenable to the opinion chiefly of that class, namely, its own members. It is known that the bad workmen who form the majority of the operatives in many branches of industry, are decidedly of opinion that bad workmen ought to receive the same wages as good, and that no one ought to be allowed, through piecework or otherwise, to earn by superior skill or industry more than others can without it. And they employ a moral police, which occasionally becomes a physical one, to deter87 skilful195 workmen from receiving, and employers from giving, a larger remuneration for a more useful service. If the public have any jurisdiction over private concerns, I cannot see that these people are in fault, or that any individual’s particular public can be blamed for asserting the same authority over his individual conduct, which the general public asserts over people in general.
But, without dwelling196 upon supposititious cases, there are, in our own day, gross usurpations upon the liberty of private life actually practised, and still greater ones threatened with some expectation of success, and opinions proposed which assert an unlimited197 right in the public not only to prohibit by law everything which it thinks wrong, but in order to get at what it thinks wrong, to prohibit any number of things which it admits to be innocent.
Under the name of preventing intemperance the people of one English colony, and of nearly half the United States, have been interdicted198 by law from making any use whatever of fermented199 drinks, except for medical purposes: for prohibition of their sale is in fact, as it is intended to be, prohibition of their use. And though the impracticability of executing the law has caused its repeal200 in several of the States which had adopted it, including the one from which it derives its name, an attempt has notwithstanding been commenced, and is prosecuted201 with considerable zeal202 by many of the professed203 philanthropists, to agitate204 for a similar law in this country. The association, or “Alliance” as it terms itself, which has been formed for this purpose, has acquired some notoriety through the publicity205 given to a correspondence between its Secretary and one of the very few English public men who hold that a politician’s opinions ought to be founded on principles. Lord Stanley’s share in this correspondence is calculated to strengthen the hopes already built on him, by those who know how rare such qualities as are manifested in some of his public appearances, unhappily are among those who figure in political life. The organ of the Alliance, who would “deeply deplore206 the recognition of any principle which could be wrested207 to justify bigotry208 and persecution,” undertakes to point out the “broad and impassable barrier” which divides such principles from those of the association. “All matters relating to thought, opinion, conscience, appear to me,” he says, “to be without the sphere of legislation; all pertaining209 to social act, habit, relation, subject only to a discretionary power vested in the State itself, and not in the individual, to be within it.” No mention is made of a third class, different from either of these, viz., acts and habits which are not social, but individual; although it is to this class, surely, that the act of drinking fermented liquors belongs. Selling fermented liquors, however, is trading, and trading is a social act. But the infringement210 complained of is not on the liberty of the seller, but on that of the buyer and consumer; since the State might just as well forbid him to drink wine, as purposely make it impossible for him to obtain it. The Secretary, however, says, “I claim, as a citizen, a right to legislate211 whenever my social rights are invaded by the social act of another.” And now for the definition of these “social rights.” “If anything invades my social rights, certainly the traffic in strong drink does. It destroys my primary right of security, by constantly creating and stimulating social disorder212. It invades my right of equality, by deriving213 a profit from the creation of a misery214, I am taxed to support. It impedes215 my right to free moral and intellectual development, by surrounding my path with dangers, and by weakening and demoralizing society, from which I have a right to claim mutual216 aid and intercourse217.” A theory of “social rights,” the like of which probably never before found its way into distinct language — being nothing short of this — that it is the absolute social right of every individual, that every other individual shall act in every respect exactly as he ought; that whosoever fails thereof in the smallest particular, violates my social right, and entitles me to demand from the legislature the removal of the grievance218. So monstrous219 a principle is far more dangerous than any single interference with liberty; there is no violation220 of liberty which it would not justify; it acknowledges no right to any freedom whatever, except perhaps to that of holding opinions in secret, without ever disclosing them; for the moment an opinion which I consider noxious221, passes any one’s lips, it invades all the “social rights” attributed to me by the Alliance. The doctrine ascribes to all mankind a vested interest in each other’s moral, intellectual, and even physical perfection, to be defined by each claimant according to his own standard.
Another important example of illegitimate interference with the rightful liberty of the individual, not simply threatened, but long since carried into triumphant222 effect, is Sabbatarian legislation. Without doubt, abstinence on one day in the week, so far as the exigencies223 of life permit, from the usual daily occupation, though in no respect religiously binding on any except Jews, is a highly beneficial custom. And inasmuch as this custom cannot be observed without a general consent to that effect among the industrious224 classes, therefore, in so far as some persons by working may impose the same necessity on others, it may be allowable and right that the law should guarantee to each, the observance by others of the custom, by suspending the greater operations of industry on a particular day. But this justification225, grounded on the direct interest which others have in each individual’s observance of the practice, does not apply to the self-chosen occupations in which a person may think fit to employ his leisure; nor does it hold good, in the smallest degree, for legal restrictions226 on amusements. It is true that the amusement of some is the day’s work of others; but the pleasure, not to say the useful recreation, of many, is worth the labor of a few, provided the occupation is freely chosen, and can be freely resigned. The operatives are perfectly right in thinking that if all worked on Sunday, seven days’ work would have to be given for six days’ wages: but so long as the great mass of employments are suspended, the small number who for the enjoyment227 of others must still work, obtain a proportional increase of earnings228; and they are not obliged to follow those occupations, if they prefer leisure to emolument229. If a further remedy is sought, it might be found in the establishment by custom of a holiday on some other day of the week for those particular classes of persons. The only ground, therefore, on which restrictions on Sunday amusements can be defended, must be that they are religiously wrong; a motive119 of legislation which never can be too earnestly protested against. “Deorum injuriae Diis curae.” It remains230 to be proved that society or any of its officers holds a commission from on high to avenge231 any supposed offence to Omnipotence232, which is not also a wrong to our fellow-creatures. The notion that it is one man’s duty that another should be religious, was the foundation of all the religious persecutions ever perpetrated, and if admitted, would fully justify them. Though the feeling which breaks out in the repeated attempts to stop railway travelling on Sunday, in the resistance to the opening of Museums, and the like, has not the cruelty of the old persecutors, the state of mind indicated by it is fundamentally the same. It IS a determination not to tolerate others in doing what is permitted by their religion, because it is not permitted by the persecutor’s religion. It is a belief that God not only abominates233 the act of the misbeliever, but will not hold us guiltless if we leave him unmolested.
I cannot refrain from adding to these examples of the little account commonly made of human liberty, the language of downright persecution which breaks out from the press of this country, whenever it feels called on to notice the remarkable phenomenon of Mormonism. Much might be said on the unexpected and instructive fact, that an alleged234 new revelation, and a religion, founded on it, the product of palpable imposture235, not even supported by the prestige of extraordinary qualities in its founder236, is believed by hundreds of thousands, and has been made the foundation of a society, in the age of newspapers, railways, and the electric telegraph. What here concerns us is, that this religion, like other and better religions, has its martyrs237; that its prophet and founder was, for his teaching, put to death by a mob; that others of its adherents238 lost their lives by the same lawless violence; that they were forcibly expelled, in a body, from the country in which they first grew up; while, now that they have been chased into a solitary239 recess240 in the midst of a desert, many in this country openly declare that it would be right (only that it is not convenient) to send an expedition against them, and compel them by force to conform to the opinions of other people. The article of the Mormonite doctrine which is the chief provocative241 to the antipathy which thus breaks through the ordinary restraints of religious tolerance130, is its sanction of polygamy; which, though permitted to Mahomedans, and Hindoos, and Chinese, seems to excite unquenchable animosity when practised by persons who speak English, and profess188 to be a kind of Christians. No one has a deeper disapprobation than I have of this Mormon institution; both for other reasons, and because, far from being in any way countenanced242 by the principle of liberty, it is a direct infraction243 of that principle, being a mere riveting244 of the chains of one half of the community, and an emancipation245 of the other from reciprocity of obligation towards them. Still, it must be remembered that this relation is as much voluntary on the part of the women concerned in it, and who may be deemed the sufferers by it, as is the case with any other form of the marriage institution; and however surprising this fact may appear, it has its explanation in the common ideas and customs of the world, which teaching women to think marriage the one thing needful, make it intelligible246 that many a woman should prefer being one of several wives, to not being a wife at all. Other countries are not asked to recognize such unions, or release any portion of their inhabitants from their own laws on the score of Mormonite opinions. But when the dissentients have conceded to the hostile sentiments of others, far more than could justly be demanded; when they have left the countries to which their doctrines247 were unacceptable, and established themselves in a remote corner of the earth, which they have been the first to render habitable to human beings; it is difficult to see on what principles but those of tyranny they can be prevented from living there under what laws they please, provided they commit no aggression248 on other nations, and allow perfect freedom of departure to those who are dissatisfied with their ways. A recent writer, in some respects of considerable merit, proposes (to use his own words,) not a crusade, but a civilizade, against this polygamous community, to put an end to what seems to him a retrograde step in civilization. It also appears so to me, but I am not aware that any community has a right to force another to be civilized249. So long as the sufferers by the bad law do not invoke250 assistance from other communities, I cannot admit that persons entirely unconnected with them ought to step in and require that a condition of things with which all who are directly interested appear to be satisfied, should be put an end to because it is a scandal to persons some thousands of miles distant, who have no part or concern in it. Let them send missionaries251, if they please, to preach against it; and let them, by any fair means, (of which silencing the teachers is not one,) oppose the progress of similar doctrines among their own people. If civilization has got the better of barbarism when barbarism had the world to itself, it is too much to profess to be afraid lest barbarism, after having been fairly got under, should revive and conquer civilization. A civilization that can thus succumb252 to its vanquished253 enemy must first have become so degenerate254, that neither its appointed priests and teachers, nor anybody else, has the capacity, or will take the trouble, to stand up for it. If this be so, the sooner such a civilization receives notice to quit, the better. It can only go on from bad to worse, until destroyed and regenerated255 (like the Western Empire) by energetic barbarians256.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
secondly
|
|
| adv.第二，其次 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
fixed
|
|
| adj.固定的，不变的，准备好的；(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
equitable
|
|
| adj.公平的；公正的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
labor
|
|
| n.劳动，努力，工作，劳工；分娩；vi.劳动，努力，苦干；vt.详细分析；麻烦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
labors
|
|
| v.努力争取(for)( labor的第三人称单数 )；苦干；详细分析；（指引擎）缓慢而困难地运转 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
incurred
|
|
| [医]招致的，遭受的； incur的过去式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
incur
|
|
| vt.招致，蒙受，遭遇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
molestation
|
|
| n.骚扰，干扰，调戏；折磨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
justified
|
|
| a.正当的，有理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
withhold
|
|
| v.拒绝，不给；使停止，阻挡 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
offender
|
|
| n.冒犯者，违反者，犯罪者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
jurisdiction
|
|
| n.司法权，审判权，管辖权，控制权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
interfering
|
|
| adj. 妨碍的 动词interfere的现在分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
indifference
|
|
| n.不感兴趣，不关心，冷淡，不在乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
well-being
|
|
| n.安康，安乐，幸福 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
diminution
|
|
| n.减少；变小 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
disinterested
|
|
| adj.不关心的，不感兴趣的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
exertion
|
|
| n.尽力，努力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
benevolence
|
|
| n.慈悲，捐助 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
scourges
|
|
| 带来灾难的人或东西，祸害( scourge的名词复数 )； 鞭子 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
metaphorical
|
|
| a.隐喻的，比喻的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
virtues
|
|
| 美德( virtue的名词复数 )； 德行； 优点； 长处 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
persuasion
|
|
| n.劝说；说服；持有某种信仰的宗派 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
stimulating
|
|
| adj.有启发性的，能激发人思考的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
faculties
|
|
| n.能力( faculty的名词复数 )；全体教职员；技巧；院 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
attachment
|
|
| n.附属物，附件；依恋；依附 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
trifling
|
|
| adj.微不足道的；没什么价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
possessed
|
|
| adj.疯狂的；拥有的，占有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
interfere
|
|
| v.(in)干涉，干预；(with)妨碍，打扰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
presumptions
|
|
| n.假定( presumption的名词复数 )；认定；推定；放肆 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
exhortations
|
|
| n.敦促( exhortation的名词复数 )；极力推荐；（正式的）演讲；（宗教仪式中的）劝诫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
obtruded
|
|
| v.强行向前，强行，强迫( obtrude的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
outweighed
|
|
| v.在重量上超过( outweigh的过去式和过去分词 )；在重要性或价值方面超过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
constrain
|
|
| vt.限制，约束；克制，抑制 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
affected
|
|
| adj.不自然的，假装的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
eminent
|
|
| adj.显赫的，杰出的，有名的，优良的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
admiration
|
|
| n.钦佩，赞美，羡慕 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
deficient
|
|
| adj.不足的，不充份的，有缺陷的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
folly
|
|
| n.愚笨，愚蠢，蠢事，蠢行，傻话 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
justify
|
|
| vt.证明…正当(或有理)，为…辩护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
inflicted
|
|
| 把…强加给，使承受，遭受( inflict的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
inflict
|
|
| vt.(on)把…强加给，使遭受，使承担 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
obstinacy
|
|
| n.顽固；（病痛等）难治 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
excellence
|
|
| n.优秀，杰出，(pl.)优点，美德 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
strictly
|
|
| adv.严厉地，严格地；严密地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
encroachment
|
|
| n.侵入，蚕食 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
infliction
|
|
| n.（强加于人身的）痛苦，刑罚 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
dealing
|
|
| n.经商方法，待人态度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
reprobation
|
|
| n.斥责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
dispositions
|
|
| 安排( disposition的名词复数 )； 倾向； （财产、金钱的）处置； 气质 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
disposition
|
|
| n.性情，性格；意向，倾向；排列，部署 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
immoral
|
|
| adj.不道德的，淫荡的，荒淫的，有伤风化的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
abhorrence
|
|
| n.憎恶；可憎恶的事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
malice
|
|
| n.恶意，怨恨，蓄意；[律]预谋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
odious
|
|
| adj.可憎的，讨厌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
dissimulation
|
|
| n.掩饰，虚伪，装糊涂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
insufficient
|
|
| adj.(for，of)不足的，不够的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
resentment
|
|
| n.怨愤，忿恨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
provocation
|
|
| n.激怒，刺激，挑拨，挑衅的事物，激怒的原因 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
engross
|
|
| v.使全神贯注 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
derives
|
|
| v.得到( derive的第三人称单数 )；（从…中）得到获得；源于；（从…中）提取 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
abasement
|
|
| n.滥用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
vices
|
|
| 缺陷( vice的名词复数 )； 恶习； 不道德行为； 台钳 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
previously
|
|
| adv.以前，先前（地） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
breach
|
|
| n.违反，不履行；破裂；vt.冲破，攻破 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
obligatory
|
|
| adj.强制性的，义务的，必须的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
prudence
|
|
| n.谨慎，精明，节俭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
nominal
|
|
| adj.名义上的；(金额、租金)微不足道的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
displeases
|
|
| 冒犯，使生气，使不愉快( displease的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
aloof
|
|
| adj.远离的；冷淡的，漠不关心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
alleviate
|
|
| v.减轻，缓和，缓解(痛苦等) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
benevolently
|
|
| adv.仁慈地，行善地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
infringed
|
|
| v.违反（规章等）( infringe的过去式和过去分词 )；侵犯（某人的权利）；侵害（某人的自由、权益等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
retaliate
|
|
| v.报复，反击 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
pointed
|
|
| adj.尖的，直截了当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
isolated
|
|
| adj.与世隔绝的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
permanently
|
|
| adv.永恒地，永久地，固定不变地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
mischief
|
|
| n.损害，伤害，危害；恶作剧，捣蛋，胡闹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
indirectly
|
|
| adv.间接地，不直接了当地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
derived
|
|
| vi.起源；由来；衍生；导出v.得到( derive的过去式和过去分词 )；（从…中）得到获得；源于；（从…中）提取 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
deteriorates
|
|
| 恶化，变坏( deteriorate的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
deter
|
|
| vt.阻止，使不敢，吓住 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
rendering
|
|
| n.表现，描写 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
follies
|
|
| 罪恶，时事讽刺剧； 愚蠢，蠢笨，愚蠢的行为、思想或做法( folly的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
corrupt
|
|
| v.贿赂，收买；adj.腐败的，贪污的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
incapable
|
|
| adj.无能力的，不能做某事的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
gambling
|
|
| n.赌博；投机 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
hindrance
|
|
| n.妨碍，障碍 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
rigidly
|
|
| adv.刻板地，僵化地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
impeding
|
|
| a.(尤指坏事)即将发生的，临近的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
condemned
|
|
| adj. 被责难的, 被宣告有罪的 动词condemn的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
prudent
|
|
| adj.谨慎的，有远见的，精打细算的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
precipice
|
|
| n.悬崖，危急的处境 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
predecessors
|
|
| n.前任( predecessor的名词复数 )；前辈；（被取代的）原有事物；前身 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
minor
|
|
| adj.较小(少)的，较次要的；n.辅修学科；vi.辅修 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
amenable
|
|
| adj.经得起检验的；顺从的；对负有义务的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
intemperance
|
|
| n.放纵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
creditors
|
|
| n.债权人，债主( creditor的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
devoted
|
|
| adj.忠诚的，忠实的，热心的，献身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
culpability
|
|
| n.苛责，有罪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
addiction
|
|
| n.上瘾入迷，嗜好 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
ingratitude
|
|
| n.忘恩负义 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
imperative
|
|
| n.命令，需要；规则；祈使语气；adj.强制的；紧急的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
purely
|
|
| adv.纯粹地，完全地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
incumbent
|
|
| adj.成为责任的，有义务的；现任的，在职的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
contingent
|
|
| adj.视条件而定的；n.一组，代表团，分遣队 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
constructive
|
|
| adj.建设的，建设性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
pretence
|
|
| n.假装，作假；借口，口实；虚伪；虚饰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
impairing
|
|
| v.损害，削弱( impair的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
irrational
|
|
| adj.无理性的，失去理性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
lamentably
|
|
| adv.哀伤地，拙劣地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
motive
|
|
| n.动机，目的；adv.发动的，运动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
motives
|
|
| n.动机，目的( motive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
obedience
|
|
| n.服从，顺从 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
abide
|
|
| vi.遵守；坚持；vt.忍受 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
discredit
|
|
| vt.使不可置信；n.丧失信义；不信，怀疑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
frustrate
|
|
| v.使失望；使沮丧；使厌烦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
coerce
|
|
| v.强迫，压制 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
yoke
|
|
| n.轭；支配；v.给...上轭，连接，使成配偶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
usurped
|
|
| 篡夺，霸占( usurp的过去式和过去分词 )； 盗用； 篡夺，篡权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
ostentation
|
|
| n.夸耀，卖弄 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
enjoins
|
|
| v.命令( enjoin的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
tolerance
|
|
| n.宽容；容忍，忍受；耐药力；公差 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
impunity
|
|
| n.(惩罚、损失、伤害等的)免除 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
censure
|
|
| v./n.责备；非难；责难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
censured
|
|
| v.指责，非难，谴责( censure的过去式 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
odds
|
|
| n.让步，机率，可能性，比率；胜败优劣之别 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
interferes
|
|
| vi. 妨碍，冲突，干涉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
outrage
|
|
| n.暴行，侮辱，愤怒；vt.凌辱，激怒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
abominable
|
|
| adj.可厌的，令人憎恶的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
creed
|
|
| n.信条；信念，纲领 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
parity
|
|
| n.平价，等价，比价，对等 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
peculiar
|
|
| adj.古怪的，异常的；特殊的，特有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
abstain
|
|
| v.自制，戒绝，弃权，避免 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
acting
|
|
| n.演戏，行为，假装；adj.代理的，临时的，演出用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
dictate
|
|
| v.口授；(使)听写；指令，指示，命令 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
speculative
|
|
| adj.思索性的，暝想性的，推理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
binding
|
|
| 有约束力的，有效的，应遵守的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
specify
|
|
| vt.指定，详细说明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
improperly
|
|
| 不正确地，不适当地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
aberrations
|
|
| n.偏差( aberration的名词复数 )；差错；脱离常规；心理失常 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
erect
|
|
| n./v.树立，建立，使竖立；adj.直立的，垂直的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
legitimate
|
|
| adj.合法的，合理的，合乎逻辑的；v.使合法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
propensities
|
|
| n.倾向，习性( propensity的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
antipathies
|
|
| 反感( antipathy的名词复数 )； 引起反感的事物； 憎恶的对象； （在本性、倾向等方面的）不相容 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
Christians
|
|
| n.基督教徒( Christian的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
hatred
|
|
| n.憎恶，憎恨，仇恨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
repugnance
|
|
| n.嫌恶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
instinctive
|
|
| adj.(出于)本能的；直觉的；(出于)天性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
158
antipathy
|
|
| n.憎恶；反感，引起反感的人或事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
159
thoroughly
|
|
| adv.完全地，彻底地，十足地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
scrupulously
|
|
| adv.一丝不苟地；小心翼翼地，多顾虑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
impurity
|
|
| n.不洁，不纯，杂质 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
162
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
163
abhorred
|
|
| v.憎恶( abhor的过去式和过去分词 )；（厌恶地）回避；拒绝；淘汰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
164
deity
|
|
| n.神，神性；被奉若神明的人(或物) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
165
prohibition
|
|
| n.禁止；禁令，禁律 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
166
persecution
|
|
| n. 迫害,烦扰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
167
condemnation
|
|
| n.谴责; 定罪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
168
impiety
|
|
| n.不敬；不孝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
169
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
170
lawful
|
|
| adj.法律许可的，守法的，合法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
171
clergy
|
|
| n.[总称]牧师，神职人员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
172
immorality
|
|
| n. 不道德, 无道义 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
173
impieties
|
|
| n.不敬( impiety的名词复数 )；不孝；不敬的行为；不孝的行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
174
logic
|
|
| n.逻辑(学)；逻辑性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
175
persecute
|
|
| vt.迫害，虐待；纠缠，骚扰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
176
injustice
|
|
| n.非正义，不公正，不公平，侵犯（别人的）权利 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
177
unreasonably
|
|
| adv. 不合理地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
178
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
179
contingencies
|
|
| n.偶然发生的事故，意外事故( contingency的名词复数 )；以备万一 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
180
inclination
|
|
| n.倾斜；点头；弯腰；斜坡；倾度；倾向；爱好 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
181
commonwealth
|
|
| n.共和国，联邦，共同体 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
182
peremptoriness
|
|
| n.专横，强制，武断 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
183
intrusively
|
|
| adv.干扰地，侵入地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
184
pious
|
|
| adj.虔诚的；道貌岸然的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
185
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
186
pretension
|
|
| n.要求；自命，自称；自负 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
187
preponderating
|
|
| v.超过，胜过( preponderate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
188
profess
|
|
| v.声称，冒称，以...为业，正式接受入教，表明信仰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
189
regaining
|
|
| 复得( regain的现在分词 )； 赢回； 重回； 复至某地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
190
contingency
|
|
| n.意外事件，可能性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
191
costly
|
|
| adj.昂贵的，价值高的，豪华的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
192
diffusion
|
|
| n.流布；普及；散漫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
193
socialist
|
|
| n.社会主义者；adj.社会主义的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
194
infamous
|
|
| adj.声名狼藉的，臭名昭著的，邪恶的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
195
skilful
|
|
| (=skillful)adj.灵巧的，熟练的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
196
dwelling
|
|
| n.住宅，住所，寓所 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
197
unlimited
|
|
| adj.无限的，不受控制的，无条件的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
198
interdicted
|
|
| v.禁止（行动）( interdict的过去式和过去分词 )；禁用；限制 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
199
fermented
|
|
| v.（使）发酵( ferment的过去式和过去分词 )；（使）激动；骚动；骚扰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
200
repeal
|
|
| n.废止，撤消；v.废止，撤消 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
201
prosecuted
|
|
| a.被起诉的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
202
zeal
|
|
| n.热心，热情，热忱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
203
professed
|
|
| 公开声称的，伪称的，已立誓信教的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
204
agitate
|
|
| vi.(for,against)煽动，鼓动；vt.搅动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
205
publicity
|
|
| n.众所周知，闻名；宣传，广告 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
206
deplore
|
|
| vt.哀叹，对...深感遗憾 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
207
wrested
|
|
| （用力）拧( wrest的过去式和过去分词 )； 费力取得； （从…）攫取； （ 从… ） 强行取去… | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
208
bigotry
|
|
| n.偏见，偏执，持偏见的行为[态度]等 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
209
pertaining
|
|
| 与…有关系的，附属…的，为…固有的(to) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
210
infringement
|
|
| n.违反；侵权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
211
legislate
|
|
| vt.制定法律；n.法规，律例；立法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
212
disorder
|
|
| n.紊乱，混乱；骚动，骚乱；疾病，失调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
213
deriving
|
|
| v.得到( derive的现在分词 )；（从…中）得到获得；源于；（从…中）提取 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
214
misery
|
|
| n.痛苦，苦恼，苦难；悲惨的境遇，贫苦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
215
impedes
|
|
| 阻碍，妨碍，阻止( impede的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
216
mutual
|
|
| adj.相互的，彼此的；共同的，共有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
217
intercourse
|
|
| n.性交；交流，交往，交际 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
218
grievance
|
|
| n.怨愤，气恼，委屈 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
219
monstrous
|
|
| adj.巨大的；恐怖的；可耻的，丢脸的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
220
violation
|
|
| n.违反(行为)，违背(行为)，侵犯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
221
noxious
|
|
| adj.有害的，有毒的；使道德败坏的，讨厌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
222
triumphant
|
|
| adj.胜利的，成功的；狂欢的，喜悦的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
223
exigencies
|
|
| n.急切需要 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
224
industrious
|
|
| adj.勤劳的，刻苦的，奋发的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
225
justification
|
|
| n.正当的理由；辩解的理由 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
226
restrictions
|
|
| 约束( restriction的名词复数 )； 管制； 制约因素； 带限制性的条件（或规则） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
227
enjoyment
|
|
| n.乐趣；享有；享用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
228
earnings
|
|
| n.工资收人；利润，利益，所得 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
229
emolument
|
|
| n.报酬，薪水 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
230
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
231
avenge
|
|
| v.为...复仇，为...报仇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
232
omnipotence
|
|
| n.全能，万能，无限威力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
233
abominates
|
|
| v.憎恶，厌恶，不喜欢( abominate的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
234
alleged
|
|
| a.被指控的，嫌疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
235
imposture
|
|
| n.冒名顶替，欺骗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
236
Founder
|
|
| n.创始者，缔造者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
237
martyrs
|
|
| n.martyr的复数形式；烈士( martyr的名词复数 )；殉道者；殉教者；乞怜者（向人诉苦以博取同情） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
238
adherents
|
|
| n.支持者，拥护者( adherent的名词复数 )；党羽；徒子徒孙 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
239
solitary
|
|
| adj.孤独的，独立的，荒凉的；n.隐士 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
240
recess
|
|
| n.短期休息，壁凹（墙上装架子，柜子等凹处） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
241
provocative
|
|
| adj.挑衅的，煽动的，刺激的，挑逗的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
242
countenanced
|
|
| v.支持，赞同，批准( countenance的过去式 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
243
infraction
|
|
| n.违反；违法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
244
riveting
|
|
| adj.动听的，令人着迷的，完全吸引某人注意力的；n.铆接（法） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
245
emancipation
|
|
| n.（从束缚、支配下）解放 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
246
intelligible
|
|
| adj.可理解的，明白易懂的，清楚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
247
doctrines
|
|
| n.教条( doctrine的名词复数 )；教义；学说；（政府政策的）正式声明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
248
aggression
|
|
| n.进攻，侵略，侵犯，侵害 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
249
civilized
|
|
| a.有教养的，文雅的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
250
invoke
|
|
| v.求助于(神、法律)；恳求，乞求 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
251
missionaries
|
|
| n.传教士( missionary的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
252
succumb
|
|
| v.屈服，屈从；死 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
253
vanquished
|
|
| v.征服( vanquish的过去式和过去分词 )；战胜；克服；抑制 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
254
degenerate
|
|
| v.退步，堕落；adj.退步的，堕落的；n.堕落者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
255
regenerated
|
|
| v.新生，再生( regenerate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
256
barbarians
|
|
| n.野蛮人( barbarian的名词复数 )；外国人；粗野的人；无教养的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |