Imagine two people out together drinking at a bar late one night, and each of them decides to drive home very drunk. They drive in different directions through the middle of nowhere. One of them encounters no one on the road, and so gets home without incident regardless of totally reckless driving. The other drunk is not so lucky and encounters someone walking at night, and kills the pedestrian with the car. How would Kant respond to this situation

The truth is that any source can be the best source for some kind of research. as an example, if you were to write an essay about the credibility of wikipedia, would you avoid citing wikipedia? clearly not. as we know, the president of the united states jumps on twitter all the time. if you’re writing about trump, what better source can there be? it is, quite literally, an original historical document. the same would be true if you were writing about the events of the moderately recent revolutions in egypt and syria. what better source than someone who is right there in the thick of things? clearly you would have to contextualize the source as at least moderately unverified in most such cases.

The answer is violent