Car-Free Sundays in the Historic Centre
A local council is debating whether to ban private cars from its historic centre on Sundays between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. The centre has 180 residents, 70 small businesses, and a high concentration of elderly people. A pilot study found that air pollution fell by 30% during the ban and that pedestrian footfall rose by 12%, but some businesses reported a 20% drop in Sunday takings. Elderly and disabled residents say they cannot walk far and that public transport is unreliable. A group of residents argues that the ban improves health and public space. A business owner argues that the council has no right to tell people how to travel. The council must vote next month.
1. Apply Mill's harm principle to the proposed ban. Does the ban protect people from harm, or does it unjustifiably restrict liberty?
Read the worked answer
Mill's harm principle permits interference with liberty only to prevent harm to others. The ban can be defended on two grounds: air pollution and traffic danger are harms to others, not merely to the drivers themselves. The pilot data on pollution reduction strengthens that case. However, the principle also constrains the ban. If it seriously disadvantages elderly and disabled residents by making essential journeys harder, the council may be imposing a harm on them while claiming to prevent harm. The harm principle therefore does not automatically support a blanket ban. It supports a carefully designed restriction with exemptions for disabled residents and improved public transport. The business owner's claim that the council has 'no right' to regulate travel is too strong: councils routinely regulate traffic to prevent harm. The real question is proportionality, not absolute liberty.
2. Use Rawls's veil of ignorance to evaluate the policy. What would a rational chooser who did not know whether they were a resident, a business owner, elderly, or disabled decide?
Read the worked answer
Behind the veil of ignorance, choosers do not know their age, income, health, or whether they own a business. Rawls argues that they would choose principles that protect the worst off. A rational chooser would worry about being an elderly or disabled resident with poor public transport, so they would reject an unconditional ban. They would also worry about being a resident exposed to pollution, so they would reject doing nothing. The likely choice is a conditional policy: a car-free Sunday with accessible transport, disabled exemptions, and support for affected businesses. This satisfies the difference principle because it improves the position of the least advantaged while preserving environmental gains. The veil does not generate a simple yes or no; it generates a requirement to design the policy fairly.
3. The council has a limited budget. It can either fund free public transport on Sundays or compensate businesses that lose revenue. Which should it prioritise, and why?
Read the worked answer
It should prioritise free public transport, provided it is accessible and reliable. The policy's main ethical defect is that it burdens residents who have no realistic alternative to the car. Without transport, the ban becomes a penalty on age and disability. Business compensation is a secondary claim: the businesses are not being treated unjustly if the policy is legitimate and applies equally, and compensation may create a perverse incentive. There is a stronger case for targeted support for the smallest businesses if the ban threatens their survival. The decision should also be evidence-based: if the 20% drop in takings is concentrated among a few shops, targeted relief is easier to justify than blanket compensation. The principle is to address the most serious disadvantage first.