Self-study
P1
Many legal theorists have argued that the only morally legitimate goal in imposing criminal penalties against certain behaviors is to prevent people from harming others. ████████ ████ █████████ █████ ██████ ████ ████ █████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ █████ ███ ████ ██ ██ ███████ ████ ███████ ████████ ████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██████████ ██ ████ ██████ █████ ███
Legal theorists' perspective ·
The only morally legitimate goal in criminal penalties is to prevent harm
Under this theory, we shouldn't have laws that force people to act only in order to conform to some social norm.
Main point ·
Harm prevention goal justifies punishing some non-conforming behavior that it initially might not seem to justify
P2
██ ████ ██████████ ██ ██ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ █ █████ ██ █████ ██ ██████ ██ █ ███████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ████ ███ ██████ █████████ ██████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████ █ ████ ████████████ ██ ██████████ ██ ██████ ███ ████ ████ ████████ ███ ████████ ██ ██ ██ ██ █████ ████████ ██ ████ █ ██████████ █████ █████ ████ ██ ███ ████ ██ █████ ███ ███ ████ ██████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ██ ███ ████ ████████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ███ ████ █████ █████ █████ ██ ██████ ████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████ ███ ██████ █████ ███████████ █████ ██ ██ ███████ ██ █ ████████████ ████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██████████ ██ ██████ █████ ██ ███████ ████ ██████ █████ ████ ██████ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ██ ██████████ ███ █ ███████████ ██ ██████ ████ █ █████ ████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ██ ████ █████████ ███ █████████ ███ ███ █████ ██████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ████████████ ████ ████████ ████ ██ █████ █████████ ███ ███ ███ ████ ██ █████████ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███████████████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ████████ ████████ ██ ██ ███ ████ ██ █ ████████████ ████ ████ █████ ██ ████████
Example 1 ·
Lack of coordination can be harmful, so harm-prevention goal can justify coordination
Example: Conventions about which side of the road to drive on. Having a rule that everyone follows is better than no rule, because coordination will prevent harm.
P3
██ ████ █████ ██████████ █████████ █ ████ ███ ███████ ████████ █████████████ ███ ████ ██ ██ ███████ ████ ██████ ███ ██████ ████ ██ ████████████ ███████ ████ ███ ██ ███████████ ██ ██ ███████ ██ █ ████████████ █████████████████ ██ █ ███████ ████████ ████████████████████ ███ █████████ ██ ████████ ████ ██ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ███ ██ ████████ █████████ █████ █████ ████████ ████████ ███ ████ ███████ ████████ ████ ████████ ██████ ██ ███████████ ████ ███████ ███ ██ █████ ████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████ █ ████ ███████████ ██ ███ ███ ██ ████████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ████ ███████████ ███ █████████ ██████ ████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ███████████ █████ ██████ ██ ██████ █████ ████ ███████████ ██ ████ ████ ████ █████ ██ ██████ ██████ ████ █ ██████████ ████ █████ ███████ ████ ████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ████████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ███ ████████ ███ █████ ███ ██████████ ███ ███ ████████████ ████ ████ ██████ ███████ ██ ███ ██ █████ ██ █████ ██████ ████ ████ █ ████ ██████ ██████ ██████ ██ ███ ███ █████ ███ █████ ███ ██████ █████████ ███ ████████ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ████████████ █
Example 2 ·
Harm-prevention goal can also justify coordination in cases where harm goes beyond lack of coordination
Example: Rule against athletes using steroids. If this rule didn't exist, some athletes would use steroids and get an advantage. This forces other athletes to use steroids or lose competitions. So some people's freedom to use steroids ends up harming other athletes. Rule against steroids is in everyone's interest.
Passage Style
Single position
24.
It can be most reasonably ████████ ████ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ██████ █████ █████ ████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ███████████
a
In all situations ██ █████ ██████████ █████ ███ ██████ ███ ███ ████████████ ██ █████ ███████████ ███ █████████ ████████ ████ ██ ██ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████
Unsupported. The author doesn’t address whether compulsory rules are needed for coordination. Rather, she looks at how compulsory rules can conceivably be justified for the sake of coordination. Also, in the steroids example, any uniformly enforced rule is not just as acceptable as any other; banning steroids is clearly the preferred rule.
b
No private organizational █████ ████████ ██ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ ███████ █ ████████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ██████████ ████ ██ ████ ████ ████████ █████████
Anti-supported. The author states that the justification for a private organization rule (banning steroids)
c
Every fair rule ████ █████ ██ ███████████ ████ ██ █████████ █████ ████ ██ ███ ████ ██ █████ ██ ██ █ ████ █████ ██████████████ █████ ██████ █████ ████ ████ ████ ██ █████ ████████
Under the guiding principle of preventing harm,
d
There would be ██████ ████ ███ ██████ ██████████ ███ ███████████ ██ ████████████ ███████ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████████ ███ ████████ ███ █████████ ██████ ████ ██████████ ███ ████████████
Unsupported. The author says that if all drivers agreed to the rule, then formal regulation and enforcement would be justified. She doesn’t suggest that people’s buy-in would make regulation and enforcement unnecessary.
e
Unlike rules forbidding ████ ████ ██ ████████ ███ ████████ █████ ████ ███ ████████ █████████ ██ ███████ ███ █████████████ ███ █████ ██ █████████████ ██████████ ██████ ███ ███████ ████████ ██████████
Unsupported. The legal theorists at the start of the passage might agree, but the author is silent on this. She only considers rules designed to prevent the indirect harm of uncoordinated activities. Rules to prevent “inconvenience” or “chaos” aren’t discussed.