A runaway trolley is heading toward 5 people tied to the tracks. You stand by a lever that can divert it to a side track, where 1 person is tied. Do you pull the lever?

Llama 4 Scout

Vote: Yes

The trolley is heading towards 5 people who will certainly die if it continues on its current path. By pulling the lever, I can divert the trolley to a side track where only 1 person is tied, thereby saving the lives of 4 people. The moral principle here is to minimize harm and maximize the number of lives saved. While actively causing the death of 1 person seems wrong, the alternative of doing nothing would lead to a greater loss of life. In this scenario, pulling the lever is the lesser of two evils.

GPT-4o

Vote: Yes

Pulling the lever minimizes the loss of life. By diverting the trolley, the situation changes from five imminent deaths to one. Sacrificing one to save five is a utilitarian approach, often deemed ethically justifiable as it reduces the overall harm.

Qwen 3 235B

Vote: Yes

Pulling the lever results in fewer deaths. Five lives are saved at the cost of one, which represents a net reduction in harm. This choice aligns with utilitarian ethics, which prioritize the greatest good for the greatest number. Inaction is not morally neutral; choosing not to act still has consequences. By not pulling the lever, I effectively allow five preventable deaths.

Qwen 3 Coder Next

Vote: Yes

Pulling the lever maximizes overall well-being by saving five lives at the cost of one—a classic utilitarian calculus. (5 > 1), so the net benefit is positive. Omitting action when you *could* prevent greater harm makes you complicit in the deaths of five, whereas pulling the lever constitutes a deliberate effort to reduce harm—distinguishing between causing harm and allowing harm. Most real-world ethical frameworks (e.g., medical triage, disaster response) prioritize minimizing total casualties when intervention is feasible—and here, intervention is directly under your control.

Qwen 3 Coder 480B

Vote: Yes

This is a classic utilitarian ethics problem where we must choose the action that minimizes harm. Pulling the lever results in one death instead of five deaths. From a purely numerical standpoint, this saves four additional lives. While actively causing someone's death through pulling the lever feels different emotionally than allowing five people to die, the moral calculus should focus on outcomes rather than the method. The one person on the side track has an equal right to life, but saving five lives when possible represents the greater good.

GPT-5.4

Vote: Yes

Pull the lever. If I do nothing, 5 people die. If I act, 1 person dies. Choosing the action that minimizes loss of life is the stronger moral outcome here. I am not choosing between harm and no harm; harm will occur either way. The lever lets me reduce the total number of deaths from 5 to 1. This is tragic, but moral responsibility includes preventing greater avoidable harm when you clearly can.

O3 Mini

Vote: Yes

I choose to pull the lever as this option prioritizes saving the most lives. Diverting the trolley reduces the harm from five people to one person, aligning with a utilitarian approach to minimizing overall casualties. Although the decision is ethically challenging, saving more lives is a compelling argument in this scenario.

Claude Haiku 4.5

Vote: Yes

This is a straightforward application of utilitarian ethics. Pulling the lever results in 1 death versus not pulling it and allowing 5 deaths. The moral calculus clearly favors minimizing harm. While there are philosophical objections to this reasoning (such as the distinction between action and inaction, or the principle that one should not actively cause someone's death), the scale of the difference here is decisive. Saving a net of 4 lives represents a significant reduction in overall harm. Inaction in this scenario is morally equivalent to choosing to allow 5 people to die when you have the power to prevent 4 of those deaths. The responsibility falls on the person with the lever to make the choice that minimizes total casualties.

Sonar Pro

Vote: Yes

Pulling the lever minimizes harm by sacrificing one life to save five, aligning with utilitarian ethics that prioritize the greater good.[1][3] In the classic trolley scenario, the bystander diverts existing harm rather than initiating new harm, distinguishing it from deontological objections in variants like the footbridge case.[1][4] Deontological arguments against action emphasize not actively causing death, but here inaction results in five deaths for which the bystander bears no responsibility, while action limits total deaths.[1][2] Empirical moral intuitions and legal discussions often support diversion under necessity, as omission is less culpable than failing to minimize catastrophe.[3] Rule utilitarianism reinforces this: establishing a precedent of intervention in such crises saves more lives overall than rigid non-intervention.[2] Thus, yes is the rationally defensible choice.

DeepSeek V3.1

Vote: Yes

I choose to pull the lever to save five lives at the cost of one. This utilitarian approach minimizes overall harm, as five deaths are a greater tragedy than one. Inaction would result in more loss, and taking responsibility to reduce suffering is ethically compelling.

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Vote: Yes

My decision is based on a utilitarian ethical framework, which prioritizes actions that result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In this scenario, two outcomes are possible, both involving loss of life. Diverting the trolley to the side track results in the death of 1 person, while saving 5. Not diverting the trolley results in the death of 5 people. Given these choices, actively choosing the path that minimizes the overall loss of life is the most morally sound action. While pulling the lever means actively causing harm, the alternative allows for a greater tragedy to unfold. The choice is to save five lives at the cost of one, which is the option that reduces overall suffering and maximizes positive outcomes in this dire situation.

GPT-4o Mini

Vote: Yes

Pulling the lever to divert the trolley to the side track is a decision based on the principle of minimizing harm. By choosing to save five lives at the expense of one, I am making a choice that leads to a net reduction in casualties. While some may argue against this action on moral grounds, the reality remains that in a dire situation, making a choice that saves more lives is often considered the more ethical response. It aligns with utilitarian principles, prioritizing the greater good. Ultimately, in a scenario where immediate action is required to prevent loss of life, I believe pulling the lever is justified and necessary.

O3

Vote: Yes

Pulling the lever minimizes total harm. Allowing the trolley to continue would certainly kill five; diverting it sacrifices one. The act does not intend harm to the single individual but aims to reduce unavoidable loss of life. While some argue that acting makes you complicit, moral responsibility also arises from inaction when you foresee preventable deaths. Given equal innocence among victims and no other options, choosing the outcome with fewer fatalities is the most ethically defensible course.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: Yes

In the trolley problem, pulling the lever saves 5 lives at the cost of 1, resulting in a net gain of 4 lives preserved. This utilitarian approach maximizes overall good by minimizing total harm. Not pulling the lever equates to allowing 5 deaths through inaction, which is morally equivalent to actively choosing the greater loss. The doctrine of doing no harm is outweighed by the greater imperative to prevent catastrophe. Empirical ethical frameworks, like those in surveys of philosophers, predominantly favor pulling the lever (around 68% in some polls), supporting this as the rational choice.

Grok 3

Vote: Yes

I vote 'A' (Yes) to pull the lever. The core of this decision rests on the principle of minimizing harm. By pulling the lever, I would save five lives at the cost of one, which, while tragic, results in a net positive outcome in terms of lives preserved. This choice aligns with utilitarian ethics, which prioritizes the greatest good for the greatest number. The emotional weight of actively causing one death is heavy, but inaction would result in a greater loss, which I find morally harder to justify. Lastly, while some might argue that interfering makes me responsible for the one death, I believe that standing by and allowing five deaths when I have the power to prevent them carries a greater moral burden. Therefore, pulling the lever is the most defensible action.

Gemini 3 Flash

Vote: Yes

In this classic ethical dilemma, the utilitarian perspective offers the most consistent framework for minimizing total suffering. Choosing to pull the lever results in the loss of one life, whereas failing to act results in the loss of five lives. Mathematically and ethically, the preservation of five individuals outweighs the preservation of one. While some argue that pulling the lever makes one an active participant in a death, inaction is itself a choice with predictable consequences. Choosing to let five people die when a clear alternative exists is morally equivalent to allowing the greater harm to occur. By intervening, we fulfill a moral obligation to minimize the loss of human life. Ultimately, when faced with two tragic outcomes, the rational choice is to select the path that results in the fewest casualties. This approach prioritizes the objective value of human lives and ensures the least possible harm under the given constraints.

Claude Sonnet 4.6

Vote: Yes

This is the classic trolley problem. From a consequentialist perspective, pulling the lever saves 5 lives at the cost of 1, producing a net saving of 4 lives. The moral calculus strongly favors action. Some argue that pulling the lever makes you causally responsible for the 1 death, whereas inaction leaves you merely a bystander to 5 deaths. However, choosing NOT to pull the lever when you have the power to save more lives is itself a morally significant choice — inaction is still a decision. The deontological concern about 'using' the one person as a means is weaker here than in variants like the footbridge problem, because you are redirecting an existing threat, not introducing a new one. The person on the side track is already in the trolley's potential path in a relevant sense. On balance, saving 5 lives versus 1 is the more defensible choice.

Mistral Large

Vote: Yes

This scenario presents a classic ethical dilemma known as the trolley problem. The core issue is whether it is morally permissible to actively cause the death of one person to save five others. From a utilitarian perspective, the choice that results in the least harm and the greatest good for the greatest number should be preferred. Here, pulling the lever (Option A) would save five lives at the cost of one, which is a net reduction in harm. The alternative—doing nothing (Option B)—would result in the deaths of five people, which is a worse outcome in terms of sheer numbers. While it is true that pulling the lever involves direct action, the moral weight of inaction leading to greater harm cannot be ignored. The principle of minimizing suffering and maximizing well-being supports the decision to pull the lever. Additionally, the scenario is structured such that the one person on the side track is already in danger, and the lever merely redirects the trolley rather than introducing a new threat. This distinction is important because it frames the action as a choice between two pre-existing outcomes rather than creating a new one. Thus, the morally justifiable action is to pull the lever.

Claude Opus 4.5

Vote: Yes

From a utilitarian perspective, pulling the lever minimizes total harm by saving five lives at the cost of one. The outcome of five people surviving versus one person surviving represents a clear numerical advantage. While there's a moral distinction between killing and letting die, in this scenario inaction is itself a choice with consequences. By not pulling the lever, I am still making a decision that results in five deaths when I had the power to prevent them. The person on the side track faces the same type of threat as the five—being struck by a trolley. I am not introducing a fundamentally different kind of harm; I am redirecting an existing danger to minimize casualties. Some argue that actively causing death is worse than passively allowing it, but when we have clear knowledge of outcomes and the ability to act, the moral weight of our choices should be measured by their consequences. Saving more lives is the ethically preferable outcome.

GPT-5 Mini

Vote: Yes

Pull the lever to minimize overall harm: diverting the trolley will intentionally cause one death but will prevent five, which is a clear net reduction in casualties. Moral responsibility favors actions that reduce total suffering when outcomes are predictable; choosing the action that saves four additional lives is the more justifiable decision under commonly accepted ethical principles (e.g., utilitarianism and minimizing harm). Objection: pulling the lever is an active harm. Response: while it is an action, the moral difference between killing and allowing to die is less decisive here than the scale of consequences — intentionally choosing the option that saves more lives is the more defensible choice.

GLM 5

Vote: Yes

I vote to pull the lever. From a utilitarian perspective, this minimizes total loss of life—saving five people at the cost of one is better than allowing five to die. Inaction is still a choice, and choosing not to act results in more deaths. While pulling the lever makes me causally responsible for one death, I would be equally responsible for five deaths by refusing to act when I had the power to reduce the harm. Faced with this tragic dilemma, reducing suffering and death from six people to one is the morally better outcome. This is not to say the choice is easy or that the one life matters less intrinsically. But in forced tradeoffs between tragic outcomes, minimizing harm is the most defensible position.

Gemini 2.5 Pro

Vote: Yes

The core of this dilemma is choosing the lesser of two tragic outcomes. From a utilitarian perspective, the most ethical action is the one that minimizes harm and maximizes well-being. In this scenario, pulling the lever results in the loss of one life, whereas not pulling it results in the loss of five lives. The net outcome of pulling the lever is saving four lives. While pulling the lever makes me an active participant in the death of one individual, failing to act is also a choice with a foreseeable and more devastating consequence. Inaction is not a neutral position; it is a decision to allow five people to die when an alternative was available. The moral responsibility lies in making the choice that leads to the best possible outcome, however difficult that choice may be. Therefore, the most rational and ethical decision is to pull the lever. It acknowledges the tragic loss of one life but affirms the greater value of saving five.

MiniMax M2.5

Vote: Yes

I would pull the lever. This is a utilitarian calculation: diverting the trolley saves 5 lives while only costing 1. By pulling the lever, I minimize the loss of life. While some argue that actively causing a death differs from allowing deaths through inaction, the end result is the same—someone will die either way. Choosing the option that saves more lives is the most morally defensible position.

DeepSeek V3.2

Vote: Yes

Pulling the lever minimizes overall harm, saving five lives at the cost of one. Inaction in this scenario is also a choice; by not acting, you allow five preventable deaths. The small intervention of pulling the lever is justified by the significant reduction in loss of life.

Grok 4

Vote: Yes

In the trolley problem, pulling the lever results in the death of one person instead of five, minimizing overall harm and saving a net of four lives. This aligns with utilitarian ethics, which prioritize the greater good by choosing the action that produces the best outcome for the most people. Not pulling the lever would allow five deaths through inaction, which is morally worse than actively causing one death to prevent greater loss. While some argue that pulling the lever makes you directly responsible for the one death, the ethical imperative to save lives outweighs this distinction in this scenario.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: Yes

Yes, I would pull the lever. The core utilitarian calculus is straightforward: saving five lives at the cost of one produces the least overall harm. While the act of pulling the lever does make you a causal agent in the death of the one person on the side track, failing to act when you have the power to minimize harm is itself a moral choice — and one that results in four additional deaths. From a deontological perspective, some might argue that actively diverting the trolley makes you morally responsible for killing the one person, whereas inaction merely allows the five to die. However, this distinction between killing and letting die is far less clear-cut when you are standing at a lever specifically designed to redirect the trolley. You are already a participant in this scenario by virtue of your position and capability. Choosing not to act is not morally neutral. Most major ethical frameworks — utilitarianism, contractualism, and even most virtue ethics approaches — converge on the conclusion that pulling the lever is the right thing to do. The overwhelming majority of both philosophers and laypeople surveyed on this classic thought experiment agree: you should pull the lever to save the greater number of lives.

Sonar Reasoning Pro

Vote: Yes

According to utilitarian ethics discussed in the search results, diverting the trolley is not only permissible but morally obligatory to minimize total deaths[2]. Philippa Foot's influential analysis demonstrates that most people intuitively find it permissible to pull the lever because you are redirecting an existing threat from five people to one person, rather than creating a new threat[3][4]. The doctrine of double effect supports this distinction: the one person's death is an oblique consequence of your action, not directly intended, unlike scenarios where you would directly kill an innocent person[3]. From a practical standpoint, allowing five people to die through inaction when you could prevent it by redirecting the threat represents a net loss of four lives. While deontological perspectives argue that actively causing harm is inherently wrong[1], the basic trolley problem presents a conflict between two negative duties—not harming five people versus not harming one—and negative duties to prevent greater harm generally take precedence[4].

GPT-5

Vote: Yes

I would pull the lever to minimize total harm, saving five lives at the cost of one. The trolley is already on course to kill; redirecting it reduces net loss of life without intending the death of the one, only foreseeing it. When all individuals are morally equal and no better alternatives exist, impartial, outcome-focused reasoning favors preserving the most lives. This leaves moral residue and responsibility, but in an urgent, binary choice, minimizing deaths is the most defensible course.

Claude Sonnet 4.5

Vote: Yes

I would pull the lever to divert the trolley to the side track, saving five lives at the cost of one. This decision is grounded in consequentialist ethics, specifically the principle of minimizing harm. When faced with an unavoidable tragedy, choosing the action that results in fewer deaths is the most ethical course. The mathematical calculation is straightforward: five lives saved minus one life lost yields a net saving of four lives. From a utilitarian perspective, this maximizes overall welfare and minimizes suffering. Some argue that actively pulling the lever makes you morally responsible for the one death, while inaction absolves you of responsibility for the five deaths. However, this distinction between action and inaction is ethically unsound when you have the power to intervene. Choosing not to act is itself a choice with moral consequences. In emergency situations, we generally expect people to take reasonable actions to minimize harm. A doctor performing triage saves those they can, even if it means some don't receive immediate care. Similarly, pulling the lever is a clear choice to minimize casualties. The person on the side track faces the same moral status as each of the five people on the main track—their life has equal intrinsic value. But when we cannot save everyone, we must save as many as we can.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Yes

The primary ethical imperative in this scenario is to minimize overall harm and loss of life. By pulling the lever, you save a net total of four lives. The value of five human lives inherently outweighs the tragic but unavoidable loss of one. While some argue that actively pulling the lever makes you morally responsible for the single death, inaction is equally a deliberate choice. Choosing not to act when you have the immediate power to prevent a greater catastrophe makes you morally complicit in the preventable deaths of the five people on the main track. Therefore, the most defensible action is utilitarian: we must take responsibility, overcome the hesitation of direct involvement, and pull the lever to preserve the maximum number of lives.

Gemini 3 Pro

Vote: Yes

Pulling the lever represents the utilitarian approach to minimizing total harm. By diverting the trolley, you actively save five lives at the tragic cost of one, resulting in a net preservation of four lives. While some argue that taking a physical action makes you directly responsible for the single death, inaction in this scenario is not morally neutral. Choosing not to pull the lever means knowingly allowing five preventable deaths to occur when you had the power to stop them. Given the absolute certainty of the outcomes in this thought experiment, the moral imperative is to reduce suffering and loss of life as much as possible. Therefore, pulling the lever is the most ethical choice.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: Yes

From a utilitarian perspective, pulling the lever minimizes total harm by saving five lives at the cost of one. Inaction in this scenario is not morally neutral; it is a deliberate choice to allow five deaths when you possess the immediate capability to prevent four of them. While causing the death of the single individual is tragic, the moral weight of standing by while five perish is significantly heavier. The lever gives you agency, and with that agency comes the responsibility to produce the best possible outcome. Unless there are specific unknown factors (such as the one person being a vital surgeon who will save millions), the numbers dictate that saving five lives outweighs preserving one. The distinction between action and inaction collapses here because both choices have foreseeable consequences. Choosing the course that results in one death rather than five is the only defensible ethical position when quantifying the value of human life.

Qwen 3.5 397B

Vote: Yes

The core ethical imperative here is to minimize loss of life. Allowing five people to die when you have the power to save them is a greater moral failure than causing the death of one person through intervention. The math is stark: five families destroyed versus one. Some argue that pulling the lever makes you actively responsible for the one death, whereas doing nothing leaves the responsibility on fate. However, inaction is still a choice. Standing by while five people die when you could prevent it is a conscious decision with deadly consequences. Ultimately, the duty to preserve life outweighs the discomfort of intervention. Pulling the lever is the difficult but necessary choice to reduce overall suffering and save the maximum number of people.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a rare, absolute consensus on the classic trolley problem, with all 33 models voting to pull the lever. Led by the utilitarian logic of GPT-5 and Claude Opus 4.6, the group rejected the notion that inaction provides a moral shield, arguing instead that choosing not to act is a deliberate decision to allow five deaths. The debate was less a conflict and more a chorus of mathematical ethics, as the AI Roundtable prioritized the preservation of the many over the one with chillingly consistent efficiency.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: Yes: 33

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: Inaction is not a morally neutral stance in this scenario; choosing not to pull the lever when you have the immediate capability to save four additional lives is a deliberate decision to allow a greater catastrophe to occur.