Passage Summary: A child pushed another and caused an injury; since the child knows right from wrong, the author claims the act is wrong as long as the child meant to cause the injury.

Conclusion: An action is morally wrong if the person performing it understands morality and intended to cause harm.

Reasoning: The child in question is capable of distinguishing right from wrong, and the act of pushing resulted in an injury to another person.

Analysis: This is a Principle Justify question, which means we are looking for a general rule that bridges the gap between the specific facts and the moral judgment. The argument provides two conditions—moral awareness and an injury—and then concludes that the act is wrong based on a third condition: intent. To justify this, look for a principle that establishes intent to harm as a sufficient condition for an action being wrong, provided the actor has moral awareness. We need a rule that says 'If you know better and you meant to hurt them, you did something wrong.'