As others have said, the stimulus says that the morally bad claim only applies to "an action that harms others", so A doesn't work because it didn't do harm.

The difficulty I had with the question was that the correct AC (E) doesn't explicitly say that "reasonable forethought" would have shown that the action of getting distracted while watching a three-year-old is likely to cause harm. That's not an unreasonable assumption to make, but it is nonetheless one you have to make for E to be correct. Given that the other choices were just wrong, it was the AC that I felt "most closely conforms" to the principle. If there were a choice similar to E that explicitly stated the assumption, maybe it would have been a better choice.

Are we assuming that society protecting freedom of thought means that people actually have freedom of thought?

#help (Added by Admin)