「on Liberty」 , J.S.Mill , skim reading

밀 John Stuart Mill, 1806~1873 , 「on Liberty」

밀의 관심은 기본적으로, 사회가 개인에 대해 정당하게 행사할 수 있는 권력의 범위가 얼마나 되는가에 있었다. 강의를 시작하며 주지했듯이, 시장은 개인의 자발적 교환으로 자유로이 작동하지만 정책은 그렇지 않다. 정책은 필연적으로 획일/강제성을 가지며 개인과 시장에 개입하는 정부는 반드시 정책의 입안 과정에서 그것을 생각해야 한다. 그런 점에서 밀의 저작은 주요하다.

CH1

책의 서론은 이렇게 시작한다 ; “The subject of this Essay (Essay라니) is ... Civil, or Social Liberty: the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual.” 미묘한 것은, ‘정부’와 개인의 구도가 아니라 좀 더 일반화하여 ‘사회’ 혹은 ‘권위’와 개인의 구도를 그리고 있다는 것이다.

자유와 권위 사이의 갈등이 처음으로 나타난 것을 고대 그리스, 로마, 영국 등으로 제시하며, 밀은 권위를 견제하기 위해 고안된 두 가지 장치를 먼저 이야기한다. 첫째는 침해 불가한 것으로서의 정치적 자유/권리를 정해두는 것이다. 통치자가 이것을 침해했을 경우에 저항이나 반란rebellion은 정당하다. 둘째는 헌법상의 견제장치constitutional checks를 설립하는 것이다. 즉, 정부 권력의 행사는 공동체의 동의를 필요로 하게 된다.

민주정이 발전하면서 권력 제한이 중요성을 잃는 것처럼 보였다. 민주주의는 “통치자가 민중들과 일치”하게 하는 데 있었으므로, 민주주의 아래서 권력 견제는 스스로를 견제하는 꼴이었다. 그러나 얼마 가지 않아 그렇지 않음이 드러났다. 민주주의는 유럽의 주요 계급에게 유리한 것이 아니었으며, 정치에서 “다수의 전제the tyranny of the mafority”가 새로운 경계 대상으로 떠올랐다. 다음은 워낙에 명문인 것 같아 그대로 옮긴다.

“ ... But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant - society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it - its means of tyrannising are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates( ; act in politically justified way ): and if it issued wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle( ; interfere ), it practises a social tyranny more formidable( ; dread ) than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent( ; different ) from them; to fetter ( ; to chain for the feet ) the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compels all characters to fashion themseleves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment ( ; taking away one’s right ) , is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism ( ; dictatorship ) “

권두에서 ‘정부’ 대신 ‘사회’라고 일반화하여 어휘선택을 한 이유가 드러난다. 밀의 시대는 이미 민주정이 발전하기 시작한 시대였고, ( 미국 건립 즈음 ) 더 이상 전제정은 일반적인 형태가 아니었다. 민주주의라는 그럴듯한 구실 뒤에서 ‘사회’라는 불분명한 실체가 개인들을 억압하고 있었고, 그건 기존의 군주제와는 전혀 다른 양상의 힘이었다. “ Tyranny of Majority “ 라는 명명은 정말이지 적절하다. 말하자면, 대의제에서도 독재는 가능하다. Ruler와 Ruled가 존재한다. 권력 견제는 항상 고려되어야 한다.

“The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, ... That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.” 밀은 사회가 개인에게 갖는 힘의 한계에 대하여 이렇게 말하는 것이다. 가장 기본적인 원칙 하나면 충분하다 ; 개인으로서든 집단으로서든 타인의 자유에 개입하는 것은 ‘자기 보호’가 목적일 때만 정당하다! ( COLLORAL ; 당사자의 뜻에 반해 권력이 개입하는 것은 그가 다른 사람들에게 끼칠 피해를 예방하는 목적에서만 정당하다. ) “The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others.” 개인의 행위가 사회를 염두에 둬야 하는 것은 타인과 관련되어 있을 때밖에 없다.

다만 이것은 하나의 제약으로 작용한다. 이를테면 이런 구절 ; “It is proper to state that I forego any advantage which could be derived to my argument from the idea of abstract right, as a thing independent of UTILITY” 즉, “공리” 이외의 다른 것을 판단 기준으로 사용하지 않겠다는 독트린이다. 개인과 사회는 직접적으로 이해관계를 갖는다는 이야기다. 오로지 사회적 총효용을 목적으로 하는 힘만이 정당하다.

그러나 이렇게도 이야기하고 있다. “But there is a sphere of action in which society, as distinguished from the individual, has, if any, only an indirect interest ; comprehending all that portion of a person’s life and conduct which affects only himself, or if it also affects others, only with their free, voluntary, and undeceived consent and participation. ... This, then, is the appropriate region of human liberty.” 사회의 영향이 ‘간접적’인, 개인 고유의 행동영역sphere of action이 있다. 그것이 바로 “인간 자유의 영역”이다!

세 가지를 든다. “The inward domain of consciousness ; demanding liberty of conscience in the most comprehensive sense ; liberty of thought and feeling ; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological.” 먼저 인간 의식의 내면inward domain of consciousness에 관련하여 가장 포괄적인 의미의 자유가 있다. 사유와 감정의 자유, 모든 주제들에 관한 의견과 sentiment의 절대적 자유. 이는 표현과 publishing의 자유까지 포함하는 것이다.

둘째, “ the principle(?) requires liberty of tastes and pursuits ; of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character ; of doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follw : without impediment from our fellow creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them, even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong.” 첫째 principle에 관계지어 말하는 것 같다. ( 의역... ‘the principle’이 뭘까. ) 취향의 자유, 그리고 그것을 추구할 자유. 각자의 개성에 맞게 삶을 구성할 자유. 하고 싶은 것을 하고 책임을 질 자유. 해를 끼치지 않는 한 어떤 타인의 방해도 받지 않고.

셋째, 그렇다면 다음이 도출된다 ; “ Thirdly, from this liberty of each individual, follows the liberty, within the same limits, of combination among individuals ; freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others. “ 남에게 해를 끼치지 않는 한, 단결combination의 자유.

그리고 이어지는 명문! “No society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected, is free, whatever may be its form of government ; and none is completely free in which they do not exist absolute and unqualified.“ 이러한 자유들 없이는 어떤 사회도 자유롭지 않다. “Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.”

ref ; “ ... there is also in the world at large an increasing inclination to stretch unduly the powers of society over the individual, both by the force of opinion and even by that of legislation ; and as the tendency of all the changes taking place in the world is to strengthen society, and diminish the power of the individual, this encroachment is not one of the evils which tend spontaneously to disappear, but, on the contrary, to grow more and more formidable. The disposition of mankind, whether as rulers or as fellow-citizens, to impose their own opinions and inclinations as a rule of conduct on others, is so energetically supported by some of the best and by some of the worst feelings incident to human nature, that it is hardly ever kept under restraint by anything but want of power ; and as the power is not declining, but growing, unless a strong barrier of moral conviction can be raised against the mischief, we must expect, in the present circumstances of the world, to see it increase.”

CH2 ; Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion.

“ ... the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race ; posterity as well as the exisiting generation ; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth : if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. “

: 표현의 자유를 억압하는 것은 현재와 미래 세대 그리고 인간 전체에게 손실이다. 첫째, 그 opinion이 올바른 것이었다면 오류를 진리로 바꿀 기회를 박탈당하는 것이며, 둘째, 그 opinion이 오류였다고 해도 기존의 진리에 대한 분명한 인식의 기회를 박탈당하는 것이다.

“But there is a commoner case than either of these ; when the conflicting doctrines, instead of being one true and the other false, share the truth between them ; and the nonconforming opinion is needed to supply the remainder of the truth, of which the received doctrine embodies only a part. ... Even progress, which ought to superadd, for the most part only substitutes, one partial and incomplete truth for another; improvement consisting chiefly in this, that the new fragment of truth is more wanted, more adapted to the needs of the time, than that which it displaces. Such being the partial character of prevailing opinions, even when resting on a true foundation, every opinion which embodies somewhat of the portion of truth which the common opinion omits, ought to be considered precious, with whatever amount of error and confusion that truth may be blended.”

: 앞선 두 경우에 더하여, 세 번째 경우. 절대적 진리는 흔하지 않다. 지배적인 opinion은 흔히 불완하게 진리를 담보하고 있으며, ‘나머지 부분을 공급’하기 위하여 새로운 opinion을 필요로 한다. 진보는 대개 이런 식이다. “the new fragment of truth is more wanted, more adapted to the needs of the time, than that which it displaces.” (박수) 그러므로, 새로운 opinion이 가지고 있을지도 모를 ‘조각’을 소중히 다뤄야 한다.

상술한 세 가지 경우를 상세하게 예증하며 표현의 자유를 옹호한 후, 밀은 이를 ‘공리well-being of mankind’의 기준에서 네 가지 근거로 다시 요약한다.

“First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true.“ : 묵살하고 있는 opinion이 진리일 가능성이 있다.

“Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth ; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.” : 묵살하고 있는 opinion이 오류라 하더라도 진리의 일부를 품고 있을 수 있다. 지배적 opinion은 보통 절대 진리가 아니며 반대 의견과의 충돌에 의해서만 나머지를 얻을 수 있다.

“Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth ; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.” : 기존의 opinion이 정말 전체 진리라 하더라도, 항상 도전받지 않는다면 편견이나 좁은 이해에 불과하게 된다.

“And not only this, but, Fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct.” : 이런 경우에는 심지어, 기존의 doctrine이 약화되고 그 효과가 사라질 위험까지 있다.

CH3 ; Of Individuality, as one of the Elements of Well-being.

개성에 대하여. 밀은 훔볼트를 인용하고 있는데, 이것으로 충분할 것 같다.

“ ... “the end of man, or that which is prescribed by the eternal or immutable dictates of reason, and not suggested by vague and transient desires, is the highest and most harmonious development of his powers to a complete and consistent whole”; that, therefore, the object “towards which every human being must ceaselessly direct his efforts, and on which especially those who design to influence their fellow-men must ever keep their eyes, is the individuality of power and development”; that for this there are two requisites, “freedom, and variety of situations”; and that from the union of these arise “individual vigour and manifold diversity,” which combine themselves in “originality.”  “

: 인간의 궁극 목적”end”은 그의 ‘힘’을 완결되고 일관적인 전체로서 가능한 한 고고하고 조화롭게 발전시키는 데 있다. 그러므로 중요한 것은 그 능력과 발전의, “개성”이다. 그를 위해 자유, 그리고 상황의 다양성이 필요하며 둘의 연합으로 저마다의 활력과 다양성이 생겨난다. 이는 곧, 독창성이다.

인간은 무결하지 않기 때문에 다양성이 필요하다. 다양한 opinion 뿐만 아니라 다양한 삶의 방식들이 병존해야 한다. 각자의 삶을 증명할 기회가 있어야 한다. 그리고 사회적인 무엇이 행동규범이 된다면 그곳은 인간의 행복과 사회의 진보에 필요한 주된 요소 하나가 결여된 곳이다.

( “Where, not the person’s own character, but the traditions or customs of other people are the rule of conduct, there is wanting one of the principal ingredients of human happiness, and quite the chief ingredient of individual and social progress.” )

CH4 ; Of the Limits to the Authority of Society over the Individual

일반적인 의미로서의 사회, 를 다루고 있는 것은 여전하다. 즉, 특정 정치체(행정부 혹은 왕)가 아니라 개인에게 압력을 가하는 동시에 그 개인들 각각이 구성하고 있는 무엇.

“... the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain LINE of of conduct towards the rest.” : 사회내에서 살아간다는 것만으로도 타인에 대한 행위에 관련하여 어떤 ‘LINE’을 지켜야 한다. 그 규준으로서 두 가지를 먼저 제시한다. “This conduct consist, first, in not injuring the interests of one another ... ought to be considered as ‘rights’ “ : 타인의 이익-권리를 침해하지 않아야 하며, “and secondly, in each person’s bearing his share ( to be fixed on some equitable principle ) of the labours and sacrifices incurred for defending the society or its members from injury and molestation.” : 사회와 그 구성원들을 위해 발생하는 노동과 희생을 부담해야 한다. ( 그 부담분은 공평의 원칙에 입각하여. ) 이는 사회가 그 구성원들에게 강제할 수 있는 그 무엇이다—”These conditions society are justified in enforcing, at all costs to those who endeavour to withold fulfilment.” 그 이외에는 그대로 두라, 라고 밀은 chapter 내내 말하고 있다.

다른 detail한 quote들 ; “even selfish ABSTINENCE from defending them against injury—these are fit obfects of moral reprobation, and, ... , of moral retribution and punishment.” : 비행위abstinence까지도 문제시하고 있다. 다만 강의에서 나온 이야기대로 ‘법적인 징벌’ 대상이라기보다 ‘사회적 징벌’ 대상 정도가 될 수 있다고 명시한다.

“But with regard to the merely contingent, or, as it may be called, constructive 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.” : 공적인 의무를 저버리지도 않고 타인에게 눈에 띄는 해를 끼치지도 않는다면, 개인이 ‘우발적’이라거나 ‘잠재적’인 피해를 줬어도 그 정도는 감내해야 한다. ‘인간 자유라는 더 큰 선을 위하여!'

CH5 ; 원칙들의 적용. 자기 체계를 사례들에 적용하는 챕터.