One child pushed another child from behind, injuring the second child. The first child clearly understands the difference between right and wrong, so what was done was wrong if it was intended to injure the second child. Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in the argument? ['It is wrong for a person who understands the difference between right and wrong to intentionally harm another person.', 'An act that harms another person is wrong if the person who did it understands the difference between right and wrong and did not think about whether the act would injure the other person.', 'A person who does not understand the difference between right and wrong does not bear any responsibility for harming another person.', 'An action that is intended to harm another person is wrong only if the person who performed the action understands the difference between right and wrong.']