PT158 · S3 · Q25 A government is justified in interfering

This judgment concludes that the government is NOT justified in interfering with Jerry's hobby. The answer explicitly states that making home movies "does not harm anyone, nor does it increase the likelihood of harm." Since criterion 1 (increases likelihood of physical harm to others) is not met, the principle does not apply, and the judgment that no interference is warranted could be consistent with the principle. However, this answer reaches a "not justified" conclusion, and the principle only tells us when interference IS justified — it does not tell us when it is NOT justified. More fundamentally, this answer does not demonstrate the principle in action because the triggering conditions are not met. An answer that conforms to the principle should show the principle being applied: criteria met → interference justified.

This answer discusses a property being aesthetically less pleasing when neighboring properties are poorly maintained. The harm described is aesthetic — reduced property appearance — not physical harm to others. The principle specifically requires that the action increase the likelihood of PHYSICAL harm to others. Aesthetic displeasure, property value impacts, or general unpleasantness do not constitute physical harm. Without establishing criterion 1 (physical harm to others), the principle's conditions are not met, and this judgment does not conform to the principle regardless of what it concludes about government interference.

A motorcyclist not wearing a helmet increases the risk of harm to THE MOTORCYCLIST, not to others. The principle requires that the action increase the likelihood of physical harm to OTHERS. Self-harm is not covered. The action of riding without a helmet primarily endangers the rider, not bystanders. Additionally, the answer does not establish the motorcyclist's motivation, so criterion 2 (not motivated by desire to help others) is neither satisfied nor addressed. Without establishing that others face increased physical harm, this judgment does not trigger the principle's conditions.

Zabziew Pharmaceutical Corporation's research is described as "motivated by the desire to make profits that will allow it to expand its work" — not by a desire to help others. However, the answer also notes the research is pharmaceutical, which could be seen as helping others through medical advances. More critically, the answer needs to establish criterion 1 (the action increases likelihood of physical harm to others), and pharmaceutical research alone does not obviously do this unless the research itself creates dangerous conditions. The situation described here is ambiguous on both the harm-to-others criterion and the motivation criterion, making it a poor match for the principle. Most importantly, the answer does not clearly establish that the research increases the likelihood of physical harm to others.