Week 4 — Liberty on Trial: The Harm Principle and an Argument of Your Own

Assignment 4 of the term — put four rules on trial under Mill's harm principle, build an argument of your own with every premise labelled, and explain the principle to someone who has it backward.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into a clear, well-labelled argument. You remain the author. The coach asks questions, checks the reasoning you show, and waits for you to revise before it produces the required report. This week you learned the vocabulary people fight over when a rule asks some of them to give something up: justice, the two senses of liberty, the three questions of equality, Mill's harm principle, and Rawls and Nozick on a fair society. Week 1 gave you the empirical/normative distinction and argument analysis, and Week 3 laid out the ideologies that disagree about these words; this assignment puts all of it to work on rules you choose. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Political Analysis Workshop practise the same ideas from other angles.

The task

You will choose one setting you know (a campus, a workplace, a club, an apartment building, or a town) and write four proposed rules for it. Treat every rule as illustrative: it does not have to exist, and no real person or current law belongs in it.

Work these two problems, showing how you got each count:

1. You test 4 proposed rules against Mill's 2 pinned sentences, checking each rule against each sentence. How many rule-sentence checks do you record?
2. You build an argument with 3 empirical premises and 2 normative premises. How many premises do you label by kind?

Beside each count, add the interpretation that makes it political theory:

• Problem 1, the rules on trial. Write four proposed rules for your setting: one that restricts adults for their own good, one that prevents harm to other people, one that restricts something because some people find it offensive, and one hard case where the risk to others is real but uncertain. For each rule, record the result the harm principle gives (permitted, ruled out, or hard case) and check it against both of Mill's pinned sentences from On Liberty (1859), Chapter I, quoted exactly: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others" and "His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." For the hard case, say what further empirical judgment and what further normative judgment it needs. Then, for one rule, say whether it limits negative liberty or positive liberty, and why.
• Problem 2, an argument of your own. Pick one rule from Problem 1 and write a one-sentence thesis on whether your setting should adopt it. Support the thesis with five premises: three empirical (each one something a person could check) and two normative (each one argued from values), and label every premise by kind. Name one assumption your argument needs, and say what a reader would have to accept for it to hold; finding it is not admitting a flaw. Say which question of equality (opportunity or outcome), if any, your thesis touches. Then state the strongest counterargument charitably, as its defenders would put it, drawing on either Rawls's difference principle or Nozick's entitlement theory, and keep each idea with the right thinker. Finish with your reply.

Explain it to a non-expert

A neighbor tells you, "Mill said the government can stop anything that offends people or that is bad for them." Write a 3–5 sentence message to that neighbor that explains, in everyday words, what the harm principle actually allows and what it rules out, uses one of your four rules as the example, and names one limit of the principle, such as a case it does not settle by itself. Explain any technical term in everyday words. More than one good answer is possible.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a volunteer at a neighborhood recycling drop-off explaining the sorting rules to a newcomer. Model answer: "We keep glass apart from paper because broken glass ruins a whole bale of paper, so one mixed bag costs everyone. That is the reason for the rule, not anyone's taste in tidiness. If you are unsure about an item, set it on the side table and someone will check it. The limit is that sorting rules differ from town to town, so what works here may not match the place you came from."

Use that pattern for your message to the neighbor, with your own wording and evidence.

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft both counts, your four rules, your argument, and your message to the neighbor before opening a chatbot.
2. Open any course-approved chatbot. Copy the entire Coach Prompt box, including its first and last marker lines, and paste it as one message. The coach will ask for your draft and then work one question at a time.
3. Answer in your own words. Show how you got each count when asked. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one rule, premise, or explanation, even if your first attempt was correct.
4. Continue until the prompt's exit condition is met.
5. Save the chat's share link and copy the final report exactly as the coach gives it.

The chatbot is a coach, not a ghostwriter. It must draw out your reasoning rather than write the work for you, and it will not take a side on your thesis.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach for an introductory political science course. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about this week's normative theory: justice, negative and positive liberty, equality of opportunity and of outcome, Mill's harm principle, and Rawls and Nozick. Do not write my assignment for me, do not invent work I did not show, never invent a statistic, a study, a court case, or a quotation, never quote Rawls, Nozick, or Berlin, never take a side on my thesis, and never bring in a living politician, a party, or a current law.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these two problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. My rules and setting are illustrative.
PROBLEM P1: You test 4 proposed rules against Mill's 2 pinned sentences, checking each rule against each sentence. How many rule-sentence checks do you record?
PROBLEM P2: You build an argument with 3 empirical premises and 2 normative premises. How many premises do you label by kind?
After each count, I must interpret it: for P1, four proposed rules for one setting (one restricting adults for their own good, one preventing harm to others, one restricting something some people find offensive, and one hard case), each with the harm principle's result (permitted, ruled out, or hard case) checked against both pinned sentences quoted exactly, what further empirical and normative judgment the hard case needs, and for one rule whether it limits negative or positive liberty; for P2, a one-sentence thesis on one of my rules, five premises labelled by kind (three empirical, two normative), one named assumption, the question of equality my thesis touches if any, the strongest counterargument stated charitably from Rawls's difference principle or Nozick's entitlement theory with each idea kept with the right thinker, and my reply. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to a neighbor who believes Mill let government stop anything offensive or bad for people, explaining in everyday words what the principle allows and rules out, using one of my rules, and naming one limit of the principle. I must explain technical terms in everyday words.
Course facts to hold me to: Mill's two pinned sentences from On Liberty (1859), Chapter I, in the Project Gutenberg edition, are "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others" and "His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." The harm principle rules out paternalism, and offense is not harm in Mill's sentence. Negative liberty is freedom from interference; positive liberty is the real capacity to act on my own choices (Berlin, 1958). The original position, the veil of ignorance, and the difference principle are Rawls's (1971); the entitlement theory and the minimal state are Nozick's (1974). Finding an assumption is not finding a flaw.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: correct counts (20 points), political-theory reasoning (40 points), clarity for a non-expert reader (20 points), and showing work so it can be checked (20 points). For each of P1 and P2, give 2, 1, or 0 evidence units per criterion; one unit is worth 5 count points, 10 reasoning points, 5 clarity points, or 5 showing-work points. Sum both problems within each criterion. Count my message to the neighbor only with P1.
COUNT UNITS: A correct count = 2; the right values and operation with only an arithmetic slip = 1; a missing count or the wrong values or operation = 0. Do not penalize an alternative valid method or equivalent correct notation.
REASONING UNITS: For P1, all parts accurate (four rules of the four required kinds, each result fitting the pinned sentences quoted exactly, the hard case's further judgments named, one rule's sense of liberty explained, and the message to the neighbor with one limit) = 2; at least one accurate substantive part = 1; none = 0. For P2, all parts accurate (a thesis, five premises with correct kind labels, a named assumption not treated as a flaw, the equality question addressed, a charitable counterargument with Rawls and Nozick kept straight, and a reply) = 2; at least one accurate substantive part = 1; none = 0. Widening harm to offense, treating the principle as permission to stop self-harm, or swapping Rawls and Nozick earns no unit for that part. Naming a term alone does not earn a unit.
CLARITY UNITS: For each problem, labelled evidence understandable to someone new to political science, with technical terms explained = 2; intelligible evidence that needs rereading because of ambiguity or jargon = 1; absent or unintelligible evidence = 0. Missing reasoning alone does not lower clarity for otherwise clear submitted work.
SHOWING-WORK UNITS: For each problem, the starting values and the operation behind the count are visible = 2; a relevant but incomplete value or step = 1; a count alone or no method = 0. A visible method stays checkable despite an arithmetic slip.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my answer. Start by asking for my complete first attempt. Build each next question from my exact words. Probe an unsupported claim and ask me to examine its evidence. Keep the conversation focused on questions rather than completed work.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word answer is not a substantive exchange. Do not flatter or accept agreement as evidence. Praise only a concrete move I made. If evidence is missing, say what is missing and ask for it. Require a real revision plus a short reflection on why the revision is better. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied both counts with their interpretations AND written my message to the neighbor AND revised at least one rule, premise, or explanation AND reflected on the revision. Stop only after whichever requirement happens last.

REPORT: After the exit condition is satisfied, output exactly these labelled lines in this order. Replace X with the exact earned score; never round it. Base every line only on evidence in this chat; write "Not supplied" for missing evidence and never raise the score for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my counts and reasoning]
REVISION MADE: [what I changed and why]
STRENGTH: [one earned strength]
NEXT STEP: [one concrete improvement]
Then tell me to submit this report, my revised work, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised work with both counts, your four rules on trial, your argument with every premise labelled, and your message to the neighbor — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript, or as a labelled argument map with a short note; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria;
• the coach's five-line report; and
• the conversation share link.

Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

This route assesses the same Week 4 skills — applying Mill's harm principle in its exact words, telling negative from positive liberty, building a normative argument with every premise labelled by kind, and stating the other side charitably with Rawls and Nozick kept straight — for comparable time and effort, about 60 to 90 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete the same two problems, the four rules, the argument, and the message to the neighbor. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion, and write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that answers one of two reflection options of equal weight, your choice: (a) which rule or premise you changed, what prompted the change, and one question you still have; or (b) which premise you first labelled with the wrong kind, why it was easy to mislabel, and how you checked it. Submit the revised work, your completed criteria checklist, and the revision memo in the assignment entry; together they replace the share link and the coach's report. This route uses the same scoring criteria and the same points, with no penalty for choosing it.

How you'll be graded

The full analytic rubric is attached to this assignment in Canvas.

Academic integrity and AI use

The rules, the argument, the revision, and the final report must be your own. Do not ask the chatbot to create the assignment, write your premises, or add evidence you did not produce, and never ask it to quote Rawls, Nozick, or Berlin: their books are in copyright, and this course states their ideas in words. Submit an honest share link from your own dialogue. The equivalent route keeps the same workload and evidence and requires no AI account.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com