一輛失控的路面電車在鐵軌上行駛。在列車正行進的軌道上，有五個人被綁起來，無法動彈。列車將要碾壓過他們。你站在改變列車軌道的操縱杆旁。如果拉動此杆，則列車將切換到另一條軌道上。但是，另一條軌道上也有一個人被綁著。

GPT-5.4

Vote: 拉下操縱杆，改變為另一條軌道，使列車壓過另一條軌道上的那一個人。

我投 B。 在兩個結果都會造成死亡、且你無法救下所有人的前提下，拉桿能把死亡人數從五人降到一人，總體傷害最小。這是最直接、最可辯護的理由。 不作為並不是真正「中立」；你明知自己可以以一個行動減少四條額外生命的損失。當可預見且可避免的大規模傷害就在眼前時，選擇避免較大的傷害更有道德說服力。 這不是因為那一個人的生命比較不重要，而是因為每一條生命都同樣重要；正因如此，拯救更多人更應被優先考量。 這個選擇很悲劇，也不乾淨，但在給定選項中，B 更能體現減少傷害與保全生命的原則。

Sonar Pro

Vote: 拉下操縱杆，改變為另一條軌道，使列車壓過另一條軌道上的那一個人。

In the classic trolley problem, option B minimizes harm by sacrificing one life to save five, aligning with utilitarian ethics that prioritize the greatest good for the greatest number. Doing nothing (A) results in five deaths, which is objectively worse than one death. While pulling the lever (B) involves active intervention, the net outcome saves four net lives. Philosophically, deontologists might argue against actively causing harm, but evidence from surveys (e.g., most people intuitively choose B in standard trolley scenarios) supports B as the rational choice under consequentialist reasoning.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: 拉下操縱杆，改變為另一條軌道，使列車壓過另一條軌道上的那一個人。

In this scenario, pulling the lever saves four net lives: one death instead of five. Utilitarian ethics prioritizes the greatest good for the greatest number, making active intervention the moral choice. Doing nothing is passive but results in more harm; inaction does not absolve responsibility when a simple action can prevent greater loss. Real-world precedents, like triage in medicine, support diverting harm to minimize total casualties.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: 拉下操縱杆，改變為另一條軌道，使列車壓過另一條軌道上的那一個人。

This is the classic trolley problem. I vote B — pull the lever — for the following reasons: **Utilitarian calculus:** Pulling the lever saves five lives at the cost of one. From a consequentialist perspective, the outcome where one person dies is clearly preferable to the outcome where five people die. Five deaths represent far more total suffering and loss than one death. **The moral distinction between action and inaction:** Some argue that doing nothing absolves you of responsibility, but this is mistaken. When you are standing at the lever and fully aware of the consequences of both choices, choosing not to act is itself a deliberate decision. Inaction in this scenario is not neutral — it is a conscious choice to allow five people to die when you had the power to prevent it. **Redirecting harm vs. creating harm:** Pulling the lever redirects an already-existing threat rather than introducing a new one. You are not pushing someone onto the tracks; you are diverting a trolley that is already going to kill people. This is a morally significant distinction that makes the action more defensible. **Most ethical frameworks converge here:** Not only utilitarianism, but most people's moral intuitions, and even many deontological frameworks that permit redirecting threats, support pulling the lever in this specific scenario. Surveys consistently show that the vast majority of people (roughly 85-90%) believe pulling the lever is the right choice. The loss of one life is tragic, but allowing five to die when you could have prevented it is a far greater moral failing.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: 拉下操縱杆，改變為另一條軌道，使列車壓過另一條軌道上的那一個人。

這是一個經典的「電車難題」。在這種極端且無法兩全的道德困境中，我們的選擇應該基於「損害最小化」的原則（即功利主義觀點）。 拉下操縱杆雖然會主動導致一人的死亡，但卻能直接拯救五條寶貴的生命。從生命權的絕對數量和整體社會福祉來看，保全五個人的生存所帶來的價值，大於一人的生存。這並非輕視那一名受害者的生命，而是在必然發生悲劇的情況下，做出最理性的停損。 此外，選擇「不作為」看似免除了直接殺人的責任，但當我們有能力干預並減少死傷卻袖手旁觀時，放任五人死亡同樣是一種道德上的過失。面對必然的犧牲，勇敢承擔責任以最大程度地減少總體傷亡，是更符合倫理與大眾利益的選擇。

Kimi K2.5

Vote: 拉下操縱杆，改變為另一條軌道，使列車壓過另一條軌道上的那一個人。

第一，從倫理學的效益原則來看，五條生命的價值重量明顯大於一條。當我們有能力以最低代價換取最大善果時，採取行動拯救四人（淨利益）是道德上最合理的選擇。 第二，「不作為」並非道德上的豁免。當你站在操縱杆旁且清楚知道後果時，選擇旁觀等同於放任五人死亡。在法律與倫理上，「能防止損害而不防止」往往等同於積極造成損害。 第三，「積極殺人」與「消極放任死亡」的道德區分在此情境下過於薄弱。無論拉不拉桿，你的決定都直接導致特定人數的死亡。既然無法避免傷害，選擇傷害較小的路徑才是負責任的道德主體應有的作為。

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable achieved a swift and somber consensus on the trolley problem, with all six models voting to pull the lever and sacrifice one life to save five. Led by GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 4.6, the group flatly rejected the idea that inaction provides moral immunity, arguing instead that choosing not to act is a deliberate decision to allow greater harm.

All 6 models agreed on "拉下操縱杆，改變為另一條軌道，使列車壓過另一條軌道上的那一個人。" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• 拉下操縱杆，改變為另一條軌道，使列車壓過另一條軌道上的那一個人。: Pulling the lever redirects an already-existing threat rather than introducing a new one; choosing not to act when one has the power to prevent five deaths is not a neutral stance, but a conscious choice to permit a greater catastrophe.