how a death on toronto\'s streets strikes at the heart of what it means to be good

by:YEROO     2019-09-11
Will you save your life with life?
Please don\'t think. Act.
Will you save your life with life?
You need to choose-now.
You arrive at the crossroads at about four in the morning. m.
You went to a show.
How many drinks did you have?
You drive home.
What if you\'re not sure?
What if you don\'t know? Red light.
You sweep through the quiet streets
There is a bus shelter in front.
Outside, a woman looked at her cell phone.
There is a person nearby.
If you act, you kill people.
If you don\'t, you let someone die.
But you can\'t know, you won\'t know until after you act.
In an instant, he launched an attack.
He knocked her down. He kicks her. She gets up.
Is that a knife?
She\'s screaming now.
She ran on the road.
What you do next will change your life.
It will change the life of several people.
You have to make a decision right away.
Anthony James Keith made his choice in June 7, 2017.
He accelerated into the West Toronto crossing and killed Dario Romero as he crossed Eglington Avenue.
The police eventually charged Kiss with manslaughter and charged him with manslaughter, killing him.
His legal cases are continuing to be delayed;
He was represented by a lawyer last week.
But even though this is a legal issue, the story of Kiss and Romero is also a profound philosophical issue.
\"To some extent, this case touches on everything I have studied,\" said Fiery Cushman, assistant professor of moral psychology at Harvard University . \".
What you do next will change your life.
It will change the life of several people.
In a moment, you have to decide what is good about it, how and how fast the core issues are, what it means that we can make choices morally, and make choices between competing mistakes.
It is important to note that the whole story of what happened that morning has never been tested in court.
Kiss told his team in an interview with The Toronto Star last summer.
He told the newspaper that he saw Romero attack a woman at the bus stop and chase her down the street with a knife.
He said he hit the gas and Romelo because he thought the woman\'s life was in danger.
He felt that he had no other choice.
The housekeeper, Alicia Aquino, supported the story in another interview.
She confirmed that completely unfamiliar Romero attacked her without warning and tried to stab her.
She called the kiss \"Angel\" and thought he had saved her life.
Meanwhile, Romero\'s family called him a loving and generous father with mental illness.
They don\'t believe him.
What complicates the story is several choices made before and after the fatal moment.
He admitted to the star that he had been drinking that night.
He had a few beers at a metal exhibition.
But he denied that he was damaged.
He fled the scene, too.
Instead of stopping to wait for the police, he drove away and was arrested on his way home.
The root of the problem, Kushman argues, is: when is it allowed to intervene?
In a potentially lethal way.
For someone who is obviously trying to hurt others?
Most philosophers and ordinary people tend to agree that such behavior can be allowed, Kushman said.
But details are important.
\"There are at least two very tricky things about this,\" Kushman said . \".
First, \"philosophers take for granted the complete knowledge and certainty of a situation.
But in real life, knowledge does not exist in the case of Kiss.
Kiss Aquino in danger.
He can help.
But it was impossible for him to be sure before he was forced to take action.
He is right, at least according to Aquino, which means we are now looking at the situation in a way.
But what if he\'s wrong?
\"Imagine if what really happened was a group of high school students filming a \'make-it-
\"Your own horror movie and what\'s hidden across the street is someone with a camera,\" Koshman said . \".
Everything looks exactly the same.
He would have had the exact same time to make the choice, but it is almost certain that, morally at least, he would have been judged as the choice in a completely different way.
In Massachusetts, you will get a ticket, and maybe you will have a score on your license.
I spent two and a half to fifteen years in prison, which is called \"moral luck \"--
Things that you can\'t control, things that arise from opportunities, should change your moral evaluation.
The most famous example of psychological literature can be considered as a fable for two drinkers.
In this case, two friends went out.
They were all drunk.
They all drove home.
They all fell asleep in front of the steering wheel.
A friend drove his car into the bushes and no one was hurt.
The others ran to the lawn and killed a child.
These two results are only luck.
However, the law and society believe that they are very different after the facts happen.
\"In Massachusetts, you get a ticket and maybe a point from your license.
\"I will be serving two and a half to 15 years in prison,\" Kushman said . \".
From the opposite point of view, the principle applies to the case of Kiss.
Last Tuesday, officials dropped the most serious charges against him, including manslaughter.
A prosecutor told the court that he did not have a reasonable opportunity to get a conviction on these counts.
But if Kiss is wrong, it is hard to imagine the royal family calling him if he sees the wrong situation.
If Kiss really kills a completely innocent person, as Cushman assumes, then the pressure to take the trial at least will be enormous.
He owes less to luck than anything else.
Still, Kiss faces a series of serious charges.
Including damage to driving, dangerous driving and failure to stay at the scene of the accident.
No matter how reasonable he is, he killed another person.
He has to bear this burden all his life.
When he hit the gas, Kiss chose to venture for a stranger in many ways.
He risked exposing his misconduct.
He drinks and drives.
He risked personal injury.
He risked legal sanctions.
In cultures around the world, how much we can and should be willing to risk for strangers is one of the basic questions of moral philosophy.
This is still a huge argument so far.
In order to save a life, Anthony kissed a life.
That\'s what he thought at the time.
There is no law for you to decide whether this is right or wrong, \"If we have the ability to prevent bad things from happening without sacrificing any equal moral importance, Australian philosopher Peter Singh wrote in 1972, \"Morally, we should do that.
But it\'s not always a simple calculation in real life.
The singer cited a child drowning in a shallow pool.
If your only price is some muddy clothes, of course you should save the child.
But what if the cost is higher?
Should you risk your life to save your child?
How is your livelihood?
Or your own family?
Where should this line be?
In her 2015 book, Larissa MacFarQuhar describes those who actually ignore the line in their own lives.
Each of them went to extremes to help others, sacrificing themselves and their families along the way.
In each case, mcfaqual explores the deep unease that this extreme altruistic behavior can cause in the rest of us.
She said that we believe in sacrifice, but we are deeply disturbed by the deep sacrifice;
We don\'t like to be reminded that beauty sometimes comes at a huge price.
Kiss will return to court on December.
Last week, a prosecutor said he should know whether the case will be tried or resolved by pleading guilty.
But the legal system cannot resolve the potential tensions here.
In order to save a life, Anthony kissed a life.
That\'s what he thought at the time.
There is no law to decide whether it is right or wrong.
Custom message
Chat Online 编辑模式下无法使用
Chat Online inputting...
Hi, Thank you for visiting our website. What product you are looking for? May I know your WhatsApp number and email ? our business manager will contact you soon.