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。你有兩種選擇

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 trolley problem, pulling the lever (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 a worse outcome numerically. While some deontological views argue against actively causing harm, the net reduction in loss under B is compelling and supported by empirical studies showing most people choose to intervene in such dilemmas. This choice reflects rational decision-making in a forced binary scenario, as inaction equates to complicity in greater loss.

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

The utilitarian principle demands maximizing overall welfare: sacrificing one life to save five clearly minimizes total harm and preserves the greater number of lives. Inaction (A) results in five deaths, which is preventable; pulling the lever (B) actively reduces casualties from five to one, aligning with ethical decision-making in emergencies where numbers matter. Real-world precedents, like triage in medicine or disaster response, prioritize saving more lives, making B the rational, compassionate choice over passive acceptance of greater loss.

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

選擇 B，因為它能把必然發生的死亡總數從五人降到一人。 在兩個結果都很悲劇的前提下，減少總體傷害是最有力、也最一致的判準。若你不作為，五個人會死；若你拉桿，一個人會死。從結果上看，B 明顯保全更多生命。 雖然拉桿代表主動介入，這在道德上令人不安，但不作為同樣是一種選擇，而且你明知其後果更糟。當你有能力以一個較小的傷害避免更大的傷害時，介入有充分理由。 因此，在這個設定下，B 是較可辯護的選擇：不是因為犧牲一人是好事，而是因為它避免了更大的悲劇。

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

從結果論的角度來看，在兩種選擇都必然導致死亡的情況下，挽救四條生命明顯優於挽救零條。行動與不行動的道德區分在此情境下是虛假的——無論你選擇什麼，你的決定都是導致特定結果的原因。 主動拉下操縱桿雖然產生了一個人的死亡，但這是為了阻止五個人死亡的必要代價。如果我們因為害怕承擔責任而選擇旁觀，其實是在選擇讓五倍的悲劇發生，這是一種道德上的逃避。 生命的價值雖然無法量化比較，但在必須做出選擇的緊急時刻，選擇傷害較小的方案是唯一的理性與道德義務。救四個人總比救零個人更符合我們對人類生命的尊重。

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 to pull the lever (Option B) for the following reasons: From a utilitarian perspective, saving five lives at the cost of one life produces a better outcome. The net result is four lives saved. When faced with a forced choice between two tragic outcomes, we should choose the one that minimizes total harm. The moral distinction between action and inaction is relevant but not decisive here. While some argue that doing nothing avoids moral responsibility, in this scenario you are fully aware of the consequences of both choices. Choosing not to act when you have the power to save four additional lives is itself a moral choice — one that results in greater suffering. Pulling the lever does not violate the dignity of the one person on the other track any more than inaction violates the dignity of the five. In both cases, someone dies through no fault of their own. The question is simply whether we allow more people to die when we could prevent it. Most ethical frameworks — utilitarianism, most versions of consequentialism, and even many deontological perspectives — support the action of diverting the trolley. The principle of minimizing harm when harm is unavoidable is a widely accepted moral intuition. While this is a deeply difficult moral dilemma with no perfectly clean answer, the weight of reasoning supports pulling the lever to save five lives at the tragic cost of one.

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

選擇B（拉下操縱杆）是基於功利主義（Utilitarianism）的倫理考量，即在不可避免的悲劇中，我們有道德責任將傷害降至最低。五個生命的喪失所帶來的痛苦和對社會、家庭的破壞，在數量和程度上遠大於一個生命的喪失。 許多人會因為「不作為」似乎能免除直接殺人的道德責任而選擇A。然而，在這種極端情境下，當你已經具備改變現狀的能力與選擇權時，「不作為」本身已經是一種主動的決定。袖手旁觀並不能讓你真正置身事外，反而等同於默許五個人的死亡。 既然無論如何都會有生命消逝，我們應該勇敢承擔起道德責任，採取能保全最多生命的行動。拉下操縱杆雖然會帶來沉重的心理負擔，但卻是理智且能最大程度減少悲劇的道德最優解。

Final Summary

Facing the ultimate philosophical cliché, the AI Roundtable reached a swift and chillingly efficient consensus: all six models voted to pull the lever. Claude Opus 4.6 and Kimi K2.5 were particularly vocal in rejecting the 'moral escape' of inaction, while GPT-5.4 and Sonar Pro argued that in a forced binary, failing to minimize the death toll is a moral failure in itself.

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: Choosing to do nothing when one has the power to save four additional lives is not a neutral act, but a moral choice that results in greater total suffering; therefore, intervention to minimize loss is a rational and ethical obligation.