Final answer:
Harm to others that doesn't justify interference can include victimless crimes and actions that mainly affect the individual without directly harming others, guided by the Harm Principle. Certain behaviors, like speeding for subjective benefits or cultural practices serving communal purposes, also challenge the need for interference.
Step-by-step explanation:
Examples of harm to others that don't justify interference include victimless crimes or actions that primarily affect the individual acting them, without directly infringing on the rights or well-being of others. In philosophy and law, this is often conceptualized through the Harm Principle, which suggests that the freedom of adults should not be restricted by laws unless their actions harm other people. For instance, drinking alcohol at the age of twenty or consensual selling of sexual acts may not lead to a direct injury to others but can be viewed as self-harm or harm to societal norms and values.
Difficulties arise when assessing actions that have both positive and negative implications, like speeding, which might offer personal benefits at the potential cost of public safety. Similarly, the enforcement of moral decisions or social practices, such as the capital punishment system practices in some tribal societies, do not always justify interference if they serve a communal purpose without direct harm to an individual. Moreover, in ethical debates, actions that cause harm may still be argued against interference if they contribute to a larger good or if the harm is mainly self-inflicted, and not impinging on the freedoms of others.