There are two different ways of considering the nature of moral truth and duty. A contingent truth is a truth that depends on the way the world is. For example, “it is snowing” is a contingent truth because it may snow (which makes the statement true), but it may also not snow (which makes the statement false). A necessary truth is a truth independent of the way the world is. An example of necessary truth is the statement “it snows or it does not snow.” This statement is true whether it's snowing outside or not. Since this statement does not depend in any way on the observable world, it is a necessary truth. An empiricist is someone who forms knowledge based on sensory experience (class glossary). One such theorist is John Stuart Mill. As an empiricist who looks at the world to gain knowledge, it stands to reason that Mill would accept the idea that moral truths are contingent. A rationalist is someone who believes that reason, not observation, is the primary source of knowledge (class glossary). Immanuel Kant is one of these theorists. Since Kant is a rationalist, it stands to reason that he would have necessary truths because they are independent of the physical world, of pure reason. In this essay, I will apply these views to hypothetical trolley situations and share my own perspective on trolley situations. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay In the following sections, I will refer to two versions of a trolley problem. First version: a train arrives towards five workers on a track. There is a lever that, if you pull it, will divert the train to a track with only one worker. In either case, the train will inevitably kill all the workers on the track it is on. Second version: a train arrives towards five workers on a track. You are on a bridge over the railway tracks with a tall person. If you push the person off the bridge onto the track below, they will die, but their body will stop the train, saving all five people. If you don't push the person, all five people on the track will die. As Mill would view moral duty and truth as contingent, he would agree that what is normally seen as an immoral act can become moral in certain situations when it brings the greatest good to the greatest number. Indeed, for Mill, moral duty depends on the observable world. So, during the first trolley problem, he would pull the lever to save four lives. In the second tram problem, he pushed the big person off the bridge to save four lives. In keeping with the utilitarian perspective, Mill would be responsible for bringing the greatest good to the greatest number of people, even if that means manipulating others. As Kant views moral duty as dependent on necessary truths, he would not accept that what is normally perceived as an immoral act can become moral in certain situations, even when it brings the greatest good to the greatest number. Indeed, for Kant, moral duty is independent of the observable world. So, during the first trolley problem, he would not have pulled the lever to save four lives. In the second streetcar problem, he wouldn't have pushed the big man off the bridge to save four lives. In accordance with the deontological perspective, Kant would not be directly responsible for the well-being of others. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized article from our expert writers now. Get a trial)..