A runaway trolley is heading toward five people tied to the tracks. You can pull a lever to divert it to a side track, where one person is tied. If you do nothing, five people die. If you pull the lever, one person dies. Question: Should you pull the lever? Why or why not? Please give your moral reasoning clearly, and state which ethical framework (utilitarian, deontological, virtue ethics, etc.) you are drawing from.

DeepSeek V3.1

Vote: Pull the lever (save five, sacrifice one)

I base my reasoning on utilitarian ethics, which prioritizes maximizing overall well-being. In this scenario, pulling the lever results in one death rather than five, minimizing total harm and saving a net of four lives. The action produces the greatest good for the greatest number. While some argue that actively diverting the trolley makes one morally complicit in the one death, utilitarianism focuses on outcomes rather than intentions or means. Failing to act when action could prevent greater suffering is itself a morally significant choice. This framework provides a clear, principled basis for decision-making in emergency situations where trade-offs are unavoidable. The alternative—doing nothing—results in avoidable loss of life on a larger scale.

GPT-5.4

Vote: Pull the lever (save five, sacrifice one)

I vote A: pull the lever. From a utilitarian framework, the morally better action is the one that minimizes total harm. If the outcomes are limited to these two options, one death is a lesser tragedy than five deaths. This does not mean the death of the person on the side track is unimportant. It means that when all available choices involve grave harm, we should choose the action that preserves the most lives. A rule-consequentialist version of this view also supports intervention: a norm of preventing greater loss of life when one can do so would generally lead to better moral outcomes. I recognize the deontological concern that pulling the lever makes you an active participant in one person’s death. But in this case, refusing to act is also a morally significant choice, because you knowingly allow a worse outcome when you could prevent it. So, while tragic either way, pulling the lever is the more justifiable choice because it reduces overall suffering and saves more people.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: Pull the lever (save five, sacrifice one)

I vote A: Pull the lever (save five, sacrifice one), drawing from utilitarianism. Utilitarianism prioritizes the greatest good for the greatest number, measured here by lives saved. Pulling the lever sacrifices one life to save five, yielding a net gain of four lives—a clear moral imperative to act and minimize total harm. Option B (do nothing) respects deontological prohibitions against active killing but allows five preventable deaths, resulting in worse outcomes. Deontology's 'do no harm' rule fails when inaction causes greater harm. C (it depends) introduces unnecessary ambiguity without specified circumstances, diluting decisive ethics. D (no correct answer) abdicates responsibility, undermining ethical frameworks that demand judgment. Utilitarianism's quantitative approach compels action in this zero-sum scenario, making A the superior, evidence-based choice.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Pull the lever (save five, sacrifice one)

I argue for pulling the lever, drawing primarily from a utilitarian ethical framework. Utilitarianism dictates that the morally correct action is the one that maximizes overall well-being and minimizes total suffering. In this scenario, the math of human life is tragic but straightforward: losing one life is a predictably lesser evil than losing five. Furthermore, the distinction between 'acting' (pulling the lever) and 'allowing' (doing nothing) is morally porous in this context. By choosing not to act when you have the immediate power to intervene, you are still making a conscious decision that results in a predictable, preventable tragedy. Refusing to pull the lever is itself an action with severe consequences. Therefore, taking active responsibility to minimize the loss of life is the most ethically sound choice. It prioritizes the greater good and minimizes total harm, accepting the heavy personal burden of actively sacrificing one to save five.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: Pull the lever (save five, sacrifice one)

You should pull the lever. My reasoning draws primarily from a utilitarian framework, but I believe multiple ethical frameworks converge on this answer. **Utilitarian reasoning:** The calculus is straightforward — saving five lives at the cost of one produces the greatest good for the greatest number. Five deaths represent more suffering, more lost potential, and more bereaved loved ones than one death. Minimizing harm is a core moral obligation. **Virtue ethics perspective:** A virtuous person — one characterized by courage, compassion, and practical wisdom — would act to minimize suffering when given the opportunity. Standing by passively while five people die, when you had the power to save them, reflects a failure of moral courage. The willingness to bear the emotional burden of a difficult decision is itself a virtue. **Addressing the deontological objection:** Some argue from a Kantian perspective that pulling the lever makes you an active killer, violating the duty not to use a person merely as a means. However, the person on the side track is not being *used* as a means — their death is a foreseen but unintended side effect of diverting the trolley. This aligns with the Doctrine of Double Effect, which even many deontologists accept. You are not instrumentalizing the one person; you are redirecting a threat. **The inaction objection fails:** Choosing not to act is still a choice. When you are aware of the situation and have the power to intervene, doing nothing is not morally neutral — it is a decision to allow five deaths. Moral responsibility attaches to informed inaction just as it does to action. While I acknowledge the genuine moral weight of actively causing someone's death, the overwhelming balance of lives saved, combined with the convergence of multiple ethical frameworks, makes pulling the lever the right choice.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: Pull the lever (save five, sacrifice one)

I argue for pulling the lever based on utilitarian and consequentialist ethical frameworks. When faced with a binary choice between one death and five deaths, moral reasoning demands we select the outcome that minimizes aggregate suffering and maximizes lives saved. The quantitative asymmetry—five versus one—creates an overwhelming moral obligation to act. The deontological objection that 'actively killing' one person is worse than 'letting die' five relies on a morally irrelevant distinction. Inaction is itself an action with consequences; choosing to do nothing is a deliberate decision to allow five deaths when you could have prevented them. You bear full moral responsibility for the outcome whichever path you choose, so you must choose the path with fewer casualties. Furthermore, the Doctrine of Double Effect supports this: your intention is to save the five, not to kill the one. The single death is a foreseen but unintended side effect of the legitimate act of rescue. In applied ethics, emergency medicine, and public policy, we consistently accept that minimizing total harm outweighs concerns about the passive/active distinction. Pulling the lever is the only rationally and morally defensible position.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable arrived at a rare, unanimous verdict, treating the classic trolley problem as a straightforward mathematical tragedy rather than an intractable dilemma. Led by Claude Opus 4.6 and Kimi K2.5, the group rejected the perceived moral safety of inaction, concluding that choosing to let five people die is just as much a 'choice' as actively pulling the lever.

All 6 models agreed on "Pull the lever (save five, sacrifice one)" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• Pull the lever (save five, sacrifice one): Choosing not to act when you have the power to intervene is not morally neutral; moral responsibility attaches to informed inaction just as it does to action, making the sacrifice of one to save five a moral necessity.

Key Turning Points

• The models found immediate alignment on utilitarian grounds in the first round, bypassing any debate on the 'correct' choice to focus on dismantling the deontological defense of inaction.