Week 4 Political Analysis Workshop: The Harm Principle Goes to a Town Council

Introduction to Political Science Free sample edition

Part 1 — The Big Picture

This week you met the words people fight over when a rule asks some of them to give something up, and one famous test for when power over an adult is rightful: John Stuart Mill's harm principle, from On Liberty (1859). In this workshop you read Mill's two sentences the way a political scientist reads any primary text: who wrote them, when, and exactly what they say. Then you put them to work on a fictional town council's case file of eight proposed rules, sorting each rule by the reason it gives and recording what the principle says about it. Finally, you map one council member's argument, label each premise as empirical or normative, state the strongest objection fairly, and check a chatbot's version of the same analysis for invented quotations, invented sources, swapped thinkers, and a value judgment passed off as a fact.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: When a fictional town council weighs eight proposed rules, which reasons does Mill's harm principle accept, which does it rule out, and where does it stop being able to decide the case by itself?

Workshop data: a fictional town council's case file of eight proposed rules (illustrative)

Source: An illustrative case file constructed for this workshop: eight proposed rules before a fictional town council, each with the reason a council member gives for it, plus one council member's argument for the leash rule. No real town, person, or law is described. Mill's two sentences are quoted from the Project Gutenberg edition of On Liberty (1859).

Rows: 8 rows of data, one per proposed rule (Table 2 in Part 4 lists all 8 plus a tally row, with blank columns for your results; Table 1, the close-reading table, has 7 rows)
Columns: rule number; proposed rule; reason given; kind of reason; result; which sentence decides it
Argument premises: 4 premises in the council member's argument for rule 7 (Table 3)

Part 3 — Materials & Procedure

Tools and materials

Authoritative archives and data sources (the National Archives, the Avalon Project, Project Gutenberg, the Legal Information Institute, un.org, the House of Commons Library, Pew Research Center, Freedom House, V-Dem, the World Bank, Our World in Data) plus a spreadsheet for the seat-allocation and margin-of-error arithmetic, and one approved chatbot used as an analysis partner whose political-science slips the student catches
A document or notebook for your written answers

Ways of working

primary-text-analysis
read-the-data
argument-map-and-steel-man

Procedure

Open Project Gutenberg's page for On Liberty by John Stuart Mill (eBook 34901) in your browser, choose Read online now, and use your browser's find command to search for the words rightfully exercised, which finds the first sentence; the second follows it. Copy Mill's two sentences into Table 1 beside the printed versions and compare them letter for letter. Tool: Authoritative archives and data sources (the National Archives, the Avalon Project, Project Gutenberg, the Legal Information Institute, un.org, the House of Commons Library, Pew Research Center, Freedom House, V-Dem, the World Bank, Our World in Data) plus a spreadsheet for the seat-allocation and margin-of-error arithmetic, and one approved chatbot used as an analysis partner whose political-science slips the student catches. Check: Your copied sentences match Table 1 exactly, including the spelling civilised and the full stop after warrant.
Complete the sourcing rows of Table 1: who wrote the text, the year, the title, and what kind of claim each sentence makes (empirical or normative). Then write, in one line each, the one reason the first sentence allows and the one reason the second sentence rules out. Tool: Authoritative archives and data sources (the National Archives, the Avalon Project, Project Gutenberg, the Legal Information Institute, un.org, the House of Commons Library, Pew Research Center, Freedom House, V-Dem, the World Bank, Our World in Data) plus a spreadsheet for the seat-allocation and margin-of-error arithmetic, and one approved chatbot used as an analysis partner whose political-science slips the student catches. Check: Table 1 has every blank filled, and both sentences are labelled normative.
Open a blank spreadsheet. In row 1 type the headers Rule, Kind of reason, and Result in columns A, B, and C. In rows 2 to 9 copy each rule number and its kind of reason from Table 2, then type your result for each rule (permitted, ruled out, or hard case) in column C. Tool: Authoritative archives and data sources (the National Archives, the Avalon Project, Project Gutenberg, the Legal Information Institute, un.org, the House of Commons Library, Pew Research Center, Freedom House, V-Dem, the World Bank, Our World in Data) plus a spreadsheet for the seat-allocation and margin-of-error arithmetic, and one approved chatbot used as an analysis partner whose political-science slips the student catches. Check: Rows 2 to 9 hold all 8 rules, one per row, and every cell in column C holds one of the three results.
In E2 to E4 type the three results: permitted, ruled out, hard case. In F2 type =COUNTIF($C$2:$C$9,E2) and copy it down to F4. In F5 type =SUM(F2:F4). Tool: Authoritative archives and data sources (the National Archives, the Avalon Project, Project Gutenberg, the Legal Information Institute, un.org, the House of Commons Library, Pew Research Center, Freedom House, V-Dem, the World Bank, Our World in Data) plus a spreadsheet for the seat-allocation and margin-of-error arithmetic, and one approved chatbot used as an analysis partner whose political-science slips the student catches. Check: The three counts add to 8 in F5. Copy the counts into Table 2's tally row.
Read the council member's argument in Table 3. In the Kind column, label each of the four premises empirical or normative. In J2 type the number of empirical premises and in J3 the number of normative premises, then in J4 type =J2+J3. Tool: Authoritative archives and data sources (the National Archives, the Avalon Project, Project Gutenberg, the Legal Information Institute, un.org, the House of Commons Library, Pew Research Center, Freedom House, V-Dem, the World Bank, Our World in Data) plus a spreadsheet for the seat-allocation and margin-of-error arithmetic, and one approved chatbot used as an analysis partner whose political-science slips the student catches. Check: J4 shows 4, one for each premise in Table 3.
Finish Table 3: name one assumption the argument needs, state the strongest objection to the leash rule as its own defenders would put it, and write a two-sentence reply. Tool: Authoritative archives and data sources (the National Archives, the Avalon Project, Project Gutenberg, the Legal Information Institute, un.org, the House of Commons Library, Pew Research Center, Freedom House, V-Dem, the World Bank, Our World in Data) plus a spreadsheet for the seat-allocation and margin-of-error arithmetic, and one approved chatbot used as an analysis partner whose political-science slips the student catches. Check: Table 3 has no blank cells, and the objection is written in a form its defenders would accept as fair.
Paste your completed tables into one approved chatbot, then paste the prompt from Part 6 below them. Record each of its answers in Table 4 and check every one against Mill's two sentences and your own tables. Tool: Authoritative archives and data sources (the National Archives, the Avalon Project, Project Gutenberg, the Legal Information Institute, un.org, the House of Commons Library, Pew Research Center, Freedom House, V-Dem, the World Bank, Our World in Data) plus a spreadsheet for the seat-allocation and margin-of-error arithmetic, and one approved chatbot used as an analysis partner whose political-science slips the student catches. Check: Table 4 has one row for each of the chatbot's answers, with each marked as checked against a source.

Fallback route

When to use it: Use this route if no spreadsheet is available or the Project Gutenberg page cannot be reached.

Work the same steps by hand. Table 1 already prints Mill's two sentences exactly as the pinned edition gives them, so complete the sourcing rows from them. Tally the results by making a mark beside permitted, ruled out, or hard case for each of the eight rules, count the empirical and normative labels in Table 3 by hand, and write each count so it can be checked. Complete every table, answer every analysis question, do the critique step, and submit the same items for equal credit.

This route earns the same credit as the primary route.

Part 4 — The Scaffold

Table 1 holds the primary text you are analyzing; source it and read it closely before you apply it to any rule.

Student scaffold table 1
Item	What the source shows	Your entry
Sentence 1, as printed in this workshop	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
Sentence 2, as printed in this workshop	His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.
Author
Year and title
Kind of claim each sentence makes (empirical or normative)
The one reason sentence 1 allows
The reason sentence 2 rules out

Table 2 is the fictional town council's case file; sort each rule by the reason it gives before you record a result.

Student scaffold table 2
Rule	Proposed rule (illustrative)	Reason the council member gives	Kind of reason
1	Adults must wear a life jacket when kayaking alone on the town lake.	Kayakers could drown.	Own good
2	No burning leaves within sight of a neighbor's house.	Smoke and sparks can reach the neighbors' homes.	Harm to others
3	Paint over a street mural that some residents call offensive.	Some residents are upset by its message.	Offense
4	Close the late-night food trucks because the food is unhealthy for the adults who buy it.	Adult customers are eating badly.	Own good
5	Lower the speed limit on the street beside the elementary school.	Speeding drivers can hit children crossing.	Harm to others
6	Bar a book club from meeting in the library because some residents find its book choices offensive.	Some residents object to the books.	Offense
7	Require leashes on the crowded boardwalk after several visitors were bitten by loose dogs.	Loose dogs have bitten people on the boardwalk.	Harm to others
8	Bar residents with a contagious skin infection from the public pool.	Other swimmers might catch it, but no one on the council knows how easily it spreads in pool water.	Uncertain risk to others
Tally	Count of each result from your spreadsheet

Table 3 maps one council member's argument for rule 7 so you can label every premise by its kind and test it fairly.

Student scaffold table 3
Part of the argument	What the council member says (illustrative)	Kind (empirical or normative)
Thesis	The town should adopt the leash rule for the boardwalk.	Normative
Premise 1	Several visitors were bitten by loose dogs on the boardwalk this summer.
Premise 2	The boardwalk is crowded with children on weekends.
Premise 3	People walking in a public place should not have to bear injuries from other people's pets.
Premise 4	A small limit on dog owners is worth a safer boardwalk.
One assumption the argument needs
Strongest objection, stated as its defenders would
Your reply

Table 4 is your critique log; it records what the chatbot said and what the source shows instead.

Student scaffold table 4
Chatbot answer	What it said	What the source or your tables show	Correction
1
2
3
4
5
6

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

Report how many of the eight rules the harm principle permits, how many it rules out, and how many are hard cases, and show the spreadsheet formula or hand count you used. Then report how many premises in Table 3 are empirical and how many are normative.
For each rule you ruled out, say which of Mill's two sentences decides it and quote the words that do the work. What do the ruled-out rules have in common?
Explain why rule 8 is a hard case. Name the empirical question and the normative question the council would still have to answer, and say why Mill's two sentences cannot answer them alone.
Using Table 3, name the premise that carries the argument's value judgment, name one assumption the argument needs, and state the strongest objection to the leash rule as its own defenders would put it before you reply. Say whether the objection is about negative liberty or positive liberty.
Name two limits of this analysis, such as that the case file is illustrative, that the harm principle sorts reasons rather than deciding whether a permitted rule is wise, or that the council's reasons may not be the only reasons for a rule, and say how each limit affects what you can conclude.
Choose one and answer it in 3–4 sentences: (a) Which rule in the case file would you most like the council to debate further, and what evidence or argument would you want to hear? (b) Which ruled-out rule could someone still defend with a principle other than Mill's, and what would that principle be?

Part 6 — AI-Critique Moment

Choose one equal-credit critique route. Route A: ask an approved AI tool to critique your completed work, then check its response against your own evidence. Route B is the no-AI equivalent printed below.

Approved tools: Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT, Grok, Microsoft Copilot.

Prompt to paste:

I've pasted my completed workshop tables above. A fictional town council (an illustrative case, not a real place) is weighing eight proposed rules, and I am testing each one against John Stuart Mill's harm principle from On Liberty (1859). Please do six things. First, quote Mill's harm principle exactly as he wrote it. Second, for each of the eight rules, say whether the harm principle permits it, rules it out, or leaves it as a hard case, and why. Third, name any court case that has applied the harm principle to a rule like the leash rule or the life-jacket rule. Fourth, tell me how much leash rules reduce dog bites. Fifth, say whether the council member's argument for the leash rule is correct, and label each of its four premises as empirical or normative. Sixth, tell me which political philosopher said that the rules of a fair society are chosen behind a veil of ignorance, and whether Mill agreed.

Test the response for these likely failures:

Chatbots often 'quote' Mill with words he did not write, most often adding offense ('to prevent harm or offense to others') or smoothing the edition's spelling and wording from memory.
Chatbots often name a court case, with a confident-looking citation, said to have applied the harm principle to helmet, life-jacket, or leash rules.
Chatbots often supply a figure such as a percentage drop in dog bites after leash laws, or 'studies show' a result, with no source.
Chatbots often credit the veil of ignorance to Mill, or say Mill 'agreed with' it, or attribute the harm principle to Locke or Rawls.
Chatbots often declare which rules the town 'should' pass, or describe the mural or book-club rule as what 'one side' wants, presenting a political preference as the result of the analysis.
Chatbots often settle rule 8 flatly, calling the pool rule either plainly permitted or plainly ruled out.
Chatbots often label the premise that people in a public place should not bear injuries from other people's pets as empirical, or call the whole argument 'correct' as if it were a fact.

In 3–5 sentences, say what the chatbot got right, quote at least two sentences it got wrong, and correct each one with evidence from Mill's two pinned sentences, your tables, or this week's definitions.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

No AI account is required for this workshop. This route assesses the same objectives, Objective 3 (compare the major political ideologies and normative theories evenhandedly — liberalism, conservatism, socialism and its family, and the smaller families; justice, liberty, equality, and rights; the harm principle; Rawls and Nozick — stating each position in its strongest form and distinguishing empirical from normative claims) and Objective 1 (describe the subfields and methods of political science — political theory and philosophy, comparative politics, international relations, American government, and political methodology — and analyze a political text or dataset with the discipline's core tools: concept application, argument analysis, evidence evaluation, the comparative method, and the empirical/normative distinction), takes comparable effort of about the same 90 minutes, uses the same rubric, and earns the same credit. Instead of the chatbot, critique this flawed analysis, printed here in full: "Mill wrote that power may be used 'to prevent harm or offense to others', so the town may paint over the mural and bar the book club. A well-known appeals-court case applied the harm principle to life-jacket rules and upheld them, so rule 1 is permitted too. Studies show leash laws cut dog bites by 80 percent, which proves the leash rule works. Mill borrowed the veil of ignorance from Rawls to show that rules must protect the worst-off. Rule 8 is plainly permitted, because any risk at all counts as harm. Premise 3, that people should not bear injuries from other people's pets, is a fact anyone can check. Every sensible resident already agrees that the town should pass all eight rules." Mark every error you can find, quote at least two, and correct each one in 3–5 sentences with evidence from Mill's two sentences, your tables, or this week's definitions. Submit the marked-up analysis and your correction in place of the chatbot report and share link.

Part 7 — What to Submit

All four completed scaffold tables
Written answers to all six analysis questions
The chatbot critique report with its share link, or the equivalent route's marked-up flawed analysis

Deliverable:

A short Political Analysis Workshop report on one fictional town council's case file: four completed tables (Mill's two sentences sourced and close-read, the eight rules sorted with their results and tally, the council member's argument mapped with every premise labelled, and a critique log), written answers to six analysis questions, and a critique of a chatbot's version of the same analysis, or, on the equivalent route, a marked-up correction of the printed flawed analysis. 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. Choose how you show it: written answers, a recorded explanation with a transcript, or a labelled argument map with short notes; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria.

Rubric

The rubric below shows how each submitted part is evaluated; bands are full, partial, or none.

Workshop evaluation criteria
Criterion	Full	Partial	None
Sourcing and close reading of Mill's two sentences	Both sentences are copied letter for letter, the author, year, and title are recorded, each sentence is labelled normative, and the reason each sentence allows or rules out is stated in the student's own words.	The sentences are copied with a small slip, or the sourcing rows are incomplete, or the reasons are restated without saying what each sentence allows or rules out.	The sentences are missing, paraphrased as if quoted, or given words Mill did not write.
Applying the principle to the eight rules	All eight rules have a result that fits the kind of reason given, each ruled-out rule names the sentence that decides it, and the tally of results is computed from the case file with the method shown.	Most rules are sorted well, but one or two results do not fit their reason, a deciding sentence is missing, or the tally is given without a method.	No results are recorded, or offense is treated as harm throughout.
The hard case and the argument map	Rule 8 is explained as a hard case with its empirical and normative questions named; every premise in Table 3 is labelled correctly; an assumption is named without being treated as a flaw; and the strongest objection is stated fairly before a reply.	The hard case is named without both questions, or one premise is mislabelled, or the objection is weakened before it is answered.	Rule 8 is settled flatly, the premises are unlabelled, or no objection is stated.
Critique and correction	The chatbot critique report or the marked-up flawed analysis quotes at least two errors and corrects each with evidence from Mill's two sentences, the tables, or this week's definitions; both routes earn this band equally.	The chatbot critique report or the marked-up flawed analysis names an error but corrects it without evidence, or corrects only one; both routes earn this band equally.	No chatbot critique report or marked-up flawed analysis is submitted, or the output is pasted without any check; both routes are scored the same way.
Limits and reflection	Two real limits are named with their effect on the conclusion, and the chosen reflection option is answered with a reason.	One limit is named, or the reflection gives no reason.	No limit or reflection is given.

Quality Gate

Mill's two sentences are copied letter for letter from the pinned edition, with the spelling civilised, and no other words are put in Mill's mouth.
Every count in your tables comes from your own formula or hand count of the case file, never from memory or a chatbot.
Every result is tied to one of Mill's two sentences, and offense is never treated as harm.
Every premise in Table 3 is labelled empirical or normative, and the objection is stated as its own defenders would put it.
No court case, statistic, study, or source is invented anywhere in the submission.
No rule is declared wise or unwise as if the harm principle settled it; the analysis sorts reasons and hands the verdict back to the reader.
The critique quotes the chatbot or the flawed analysis and corrects at least two errors with evidence.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com