that choice has not played any part in it, nor can it be counted among the means for achieving those results.
Men would be very happy, or at the least they would not be so unhappy, if the actions of their understanding were the product of free choice. Then, the bitter and sad memories of the past would not come to renew unhappinesses that no longer exist; nor would they arise from nothingness only to cause us pain. Then, forecasting the future would not bring forward for us a thousand sorrows, presenting us ahead of time persons, events, and circumstances that either will not come to exist, or if they do, give in advance an indefinite extent to our sufferings. Then, finally, we would not think about or explore through reflection
[print edition page 25]
the causes and circumstances of present unhappiness, nor would we worsen its intolerable weight with reflection. There is certainly not one single man who does not wish to separate from himself everything that can cause him annoyance and make him unhappy; and at the same time there is not, nor has been nor will be anyone who has not suffered a great deal because of such considerations. And what does this prove? That it is not possible for him to put limits on his thoughts; that he is led necessarily and irresistibly to knowledge of objects, good or bad, perfectly or inadequately grasped; that the immediate or distant choice has no part whatsoever in the actions of the mental faculties; and that, consequently, in the metaphysical order, the understanding is not free.
How, then, to impose rules on a power not susceptible to them? How to effect change in what is most independent in man, making use of violence and coercion? How, finally, to put order into the class of crimes and assign punishments to an act that by its essence is incapable of goodness and evil? Man will be capable of not conforming his actions and discourses to his opinions; he will be able to give the lie to his thoughts through his conduct or language, but it will be impossible for him to disregard or get rid of those thoughts because of external violence. This method is unsuitable and at the same time tyrannical and illegal.
Whenever one attempts to attain an end, no matter what its nature may be, prudence and natural reason dictate that the means one uses to attain it be naturally suitable to it. Otherwise, the plan will come to nothing, the nature of things being stronger than the caprice of the agent. Such would be the folly of the one who tries to attack firearms with water or prevent passage through a moat by filling it with grape shot. When, then, it comes to changing our ideas and thoughts, or inspiring new ones in us, and for this purpose one uses rules, prohibitions, and punishments, the natural effect is that those who suffer such violence adhere more tenaciously to their opinion and deny to their oppressor the satisfaction he might get with victory. Persecution gives an unfortunate character to opinions without destroying them, because destroying them is not possible. Human understanding is as noble in itself as it is miserable for the ease with which every kind of passion confuses it. The first principles undeniable for everyone are few in number, but the consequences that derive from them are as diverse as the multiplicand, because the way in which their relationships are grasped is infinitely varied. Habits and customs that education has inspired in us, the
[print edition page 26]
way of life we have adopted, the objects that surround us, and, above all, the persons with whom we interact, contribute, without our even being able to perceive it, to the formation of our judgments, modifying in a thousand ways the perception of objects and making them appear clothed in, perhaps, a thousand forms, with the exception of the natural and genuine perception. Thus, we see that what is for him obvious and simple is obscure and complex for others; that not all men can acquire or dedicate themselves to the same type of knowledge or excel in it; that some are fit for the sciences, others for scholarship, many for the humanities, and some for nothing; that with age the same person changes opinion, even holding as absurd what he previously deemed evident; and that no one, as long as he lives, is fixed and unwavering in his opinions, or in the concept he has formed of things. As the intellectual faculty of man does not have a precise and exact measure of the vitality with which it carries out its operations, neither does it have a measure of the amount of knowledge it needs for exercising them. To expect, then, that the majority be convinced by the judgment of some other person, even when this other person might be an authority, is to insist, says the famous Spedalieri, that they see and hear through another’s eyes and ears. It is to oblige them to let themselves be carried blindly and with no more rationale than the force they cannot resist. It is, to put it succinctly, to dry up all the sources of public enlightenment and to destroy beforehand and radically the best sources they might have been able to develop over the course of time.
In effect, what would become of us and of the entire human race if the wishes of those who have wanted to place restraints on the understanding and limits on freedom of thought had been fulfilled? What would have been the progress of the arts and sciences, the improvements of governments, and the condition of men in the state of society? What, in particular, would be the fate of our nation? Thanks to the efforts of the extraordinary creative spirits that at all times have known how to throw off the chains that despots have sought to impose on thought, societies, although not having arrived at the highest level of perfection, have made considerable progress. Governments, excluding only a few that are called free, have always been alert to anything that could diminish their power and make clear their excesses. Therefore, they use every means to put thought in chains, making crimes of opinions that do not conform and calling those who profess them criminals. But have
[print edition page 27]
they had the right to do so? Have they proceeded legally when they have made use of these means? Or, rather, have they trod upon the sacred rights of man, assuming powers that no one could give them or that they could receive? This is the point we are going to examine.
Governments have been established precisely to preserve public order, ensuring to each individual the exercise of his rights and the possession of his goods in the way and form that have been prescribed by the laws, and not in any other manner. Their powers are necessarily determined in the pacts or agreements we call constitutional charters and are the result of the national will. Those who draw them up, and their constituents, cannot make provisions in them that, by the nature of things, are beyond their powers, such as the condemnation of an innocent person; making crimes of such truly praiseworthy acts as paternal love; much less subjecting to laws functions that by nature are incapable of morality, such as the circulation of the blood, the movement of the lungs, etc. From this, it follows that for a legislative, executive, or judicial measure to be just, legal, and equitable, it is not enough that it be pronounced by the competent authority, but it is also necessary that it be intrinsically possible and indispensable for preserving public order. Let us see, then, whether those measures that have been decreed or attempted against freedom of thought are of this type.
To this point we have shown that opinions are not free and consequently are not capable of morality; it remains only to show that they can never overthrow the public order, and especially not in the representative system. In effect, public order maintains itself by the prompt and faithful observance of the laws, which is entirely compatible with total and absolute freedom of opinions. Nothing is more common than seeing men who dislike laws and whose ideas are contrary to them, but who at the same time not only observe them religiously but are personally convinced of their necessity. To say this law is bad, it has this or that problem, is not to say that it will not be obeyed or carried out. The first is an opinion, the second is an action; the former is independent of all human power, the latter must be subject to the competent authority. Men have the right to mandate that something be done in this or that way, but not in order to make doctrines into dogmas, or to obligate others to their belief. This absurd right would suppose the necessity of a symbol or body of doctrine comprehensive of all truths, or the existence of an infallible authority by whose decisions one would have
[print edition page 28]
to abide. Nevertheless, nothing is more lacking in foundation than such suppositions.
But how could
