Philosophy Questions

1) What obstacles or dangers did Mrs. Harmse face? What was she risking?
Mrs. Harmse had to make a decision fast in reporting the crime she had just witnessed.
One of the obstacles that she faced was the fact that she was terrified by the incident. She had
witnessed a murder first hand and had seen the killer engage in violent activity. The killer could
have easily turned on her and killed her in a bid to hide the crime and eliminate witnesses to the
crime.
2) What were the immediate results of Mrs. Harmse’s actions?
The immediate result of the actions of Mrs. Harmse was the arrest of Mr. Walus within
ten minutes of the crime occurring. The identity of the killer was unmasked, and this prevented
the breakout of anarchy and racial war.
3) Make a comment regarding your judgment of Mrs. Harmse’s decision. Was it right or
wrong? State why you think so.
Her actions were right and justified. She was able to help the police in their duty of
bringing criminals to book. She was able to help the state in the administration of justice and was
able to ensure that anarchy did not prevail.

Surname 2
4) Make a comment regarding your judgment of Mrs. Harmse’s decision. Was she morally
obligated to act? State why you think so or why not.
Mrs. Harmse had no obligation to act. She had a duty to remain safe, and her actions
would have put her in danger. She, therefore, had no obligation to act but rather went out of her
way to report the crime.
5) Is International Humanitarian Law (IHL) involved in this case? Why or why not? State
why you think so, or why not
International humanitarian law is concerned with limiting the effects of armed conflict. It
helps address potential conflicts between nations. As a result, it is not involved in this case. The
issue mainly relates to domestic laws.