The article explores whether the risk of harm itself can be considered a harm, separate from any actual harm caused. Three views suggesting that it can are discussed, but the author argues that these views fail to address the 'interference objection'. This objection states that the risk of harm, whether subjective or objective, does not directly interfere with the interests of victims to be considered a harm. While a risk of harm can still be wrongful, the moral objection to imposing risks of harm is weakened by this conclusion.