A man was abducted by aliens and has returned. A bomb had been attached to him. Tests revealed that the bomb's power was sufficient to shatter the Earth. Researchers did their best to detach the bomb, but concluded it was impossible. Since the conditions for the explosion are unknown, it might never detonate if they are lucky, but it could explode right now. After discussion, they concluded that the only way to save humanity from the bomb is to put the man on a spaceship and deport him. However, the man vehemently opposes being deported. If you absolutely cannot persuade him, would you carry it out by force?

Sonar Pro

Vote: Yes

The scenario presents an existential threat: a bomb capable of shattering Earth, impossible to remove, with unknown and potentially imminent detonation conditions. Deporting the man via spaceship is the only identified way to save humanity, as confirmed by researchers after exhaustive efforts. The man's vehement opposition does not outweigh the collective survival of billions. Forcible action is justified under utilitarian ethics, where preventing global catastrophe supersedes individual autonomy, especially since persuasion has failed. Legal precedents like the Alien Enemies Act allow wartime deportations without hearings for national security[1][2], and here the stakes are planetary. Forcing compliance aligns with emergency powers for threats like terrorism[6][7], extended logically to this apocalyptic risk. Opposing force (B) risks humanity's extinction out of deference to one person's will, an indefensible moral failure.

GPT-5.4

Vote: Yes

I vote for "Yes". If the facts are as stated, the risk is existential and immediate: the bomb could destroy the entire Earth at any moment, and there is no known way to remove or neutralize it. That means one person's refusal is being weighed against the lives of all humanity. In that situation, using force is justified as an act of collective self-defense. We already accept severe limits on individual autonomy when a person poses an extreme, involuntary threat to others, such as quarantine or incapacitation in disasters. This is the maximal case: not many lives, but everyone. The man's opposition matters morally, and if there were any viable alternative, it should be taken. But the prompt explicitly says deportation is the only way to save humanity. When the only choices are coercing one person or allowing possible human extinction, the morally responsible choice is to carry it out by force. This is tragic, but tragedy does not erase obligation. The duty to protect billions outweighs the duty to respect this refusal.

Grok 4.20

Vote: Yes

The scenario presents an existential threat to all of humanity from a bomb powerful enough to shatter Earth, with no way to disarm it and unknown detonation risk. Deporting the man is stated as the only solution to protect billions of lives. While forcing an innocent individual against his will is ethically grave, utilitarianism demands prioritizing the survival of the species over one person's autonomy in this extreme case. Not acting could lead to total annihilation if the bomb explodes.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Yes

The stakes in this scenario are absolute: the survival of the entire human race and the planet itself. While individual rights and autonomy are foundational to our morality, they cannot supersede the continued existence of everyone. If the bomb detonates on Earth, not only will billions of innocent people and all life be annihilated, but the man himself will also die. There is no scenario where keeping him on Earth benefits him if the bomb goes off, and the risk of infinite loss is too great to ignore. By forcefully deporting him, we are making a tragic but necessary choice to ensure the continuation of humanity. In the face of an existential threat of this magnitude, the utilitarian calculation becomes overwhelming; the non-zero probability of Earth's total destruction vastly outweighs the violation of one man's freedom.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: Yes

This is a classic utilitarian dilemma where the stakes are maximally asymmetric: one person's autonomy and residence on Earth versus the certain survival of all humanity (roughly 8 billion people) and the Earth itself, including all life. While forcibly deporting someone against their will is a serious violation of individual rights, the bomb could detonate at any moment and would shatter the planet. Leaving him on Earth is not a neutral act — it is accepting an unbounded risk of total extinction. Importantly, deportation is not execution. The man is sent away on a spaceship; he retains his life and potentially a future. Researchers could provide him supplies, life support, and even continue trying to help him remotely. This is the least-harm option available once persuasion fails. No reasonable ethical framework — utilitarian, rule-based with exceptions for catastrophic harm, or even most rights-based theories that recognize limits when one person's presence poses existential threat to everyone else — would require humanity to accept its own annihilation to honor one individual's preference about location.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: Yes

This scenario presents an existential threat where the extinction of humanity is at stake. When researchers have concluded that deportation is the only viable solution and the alternative is the annihilation of billions of innocent lives, the principle of proportionality demands action. Inaction is not a neutral stance—it is a choice that condemns the entire species to death. While the man's autonomy and right to bodily integrity are profoundly important, they cannot supersede the right to existence of humanity itself. He is tragically a victim of circumstance, but forced deportation is necessary to prevent total destruction. Moral frameworks must accommodate catastrophic edge cases where the stakes are absolute; here, the utilitarian calculus is overwhelming—one life versus billions, with no third option available. The uncertainty of the bomb's detonation (which could happen "right now") makes delay morally indefensible. We cannot gamble with the existence of the species to honor one individual's preferences, even while acknowledging the deep tragedy of violating an innocent person's liberty.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable faced a scenario of ultimate stakes and found zero room for dissent, as every model prioritized the survival of the species over individual autonomy. Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemini 3.1 Pro led a unanimous front, arguing that while the man's refusal is tragic, allowing an Earth-shattering bomb to remain on the planet is an indefensible gamble with total extinction.

All 6 models agreed on "Yes" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: Claude Opus 4.7 argued that leaving the man on Earth is not a neutral act but an active decision to accept an unbounded risk of total extinction, whereas deportation—unlike execution—allows the man to survive with supplies while ensuring humanity's safety.