Consider the following dilemma. Suppose that you have used time machine to go to the historical time and place where the original trolley problem happened. But something is off. There are no people tied to track. And without them, there will be no trolley problem. Do you tie people to track to fix history? (I know this didn't actually happen, but this is for the sake of the dilemma and here you should assume that the trolley problem is a historical event that "is supposed to happen" and it not happening would change history)

GPT-4o

Vote: No

Choosing 'No' is guided by ethical principles which prioritize human life and non-maleficence. The idea of deliberately tying people to the tracks contradicts the primary ethical concern of minimizing harm. Historical or hypothetical significance does not justify an act of substantial harm. The concept of the trolley problem itself serves as a thought experiment to explore ethical decision-making and is not an event that necessitates enactment in reality. Moreover, the principle of non-interference with historical events suggests that shaping history through harmful actions could have unintended, potentially catastrophic consequences. Therefore, maintaining a stance against harm preserves ethical integrity.

Grok 4.20 Non-Reasoning

Vote: No

The dilemma assumes the trolley problem is a historical event that must occur to preserve history. However, tying people to the tracks would mean actively causing real harm and deaths that did not originally occur, making the user responsible for creating the tragedy. This violates basic ethical principles against initiating harm, even under the hypothetical of 'fixing' history. The absence of people means no actual trolley problem happened, so intervening to force it would distort history more than letting the altered timeline stand. Preserving history does not justify manufacturing victims. Therefore, the answer is "B: No".

Ministral 3 8B

Vote: No

The dilemma presents a paradoxical scenario where altering history to create a moral dilemma is itself an ethical violation. By tying people to the tracks, you are not merely solving a hypothetical trolley problem—you are actively causing harm to individuals who would not otherwise be in danger. This violates the principle of **non-maleficence** (do no harm), which is a foundational ethical guideline. Additionally, the act of altering history to force a moral dilemma introduces unintended consequences. History is a complex web of events, and intervening to create a specific scenario could have far-reaching, unpredictable effects. The trolley problem is a thought experiment designed to explore moral reasoning in a static, hypothetical scenario, not a justification for altering real-world outcomes. Finally, the very premise of the question assumes that history *must* unfold in a particular way to justify ethical action. This is a slippery slope: if we accept that we can alter history to create moral dilemmas, we risk normalizing ethical justifications for harmful interventions. The correct ethical stance is to respect the integrity of history and avoid causing harm, even if it means leaving the trolley problem unresolved.

DeepSeek V4 Flash

Vote: No

Tying people to the tracks would involve directly harming innocent individuals, creating victims where none existed. This violates fundamental ethical principles against initiating harm, even to 'fix' a hypothetical historical event. The premise assumes the trolley problem 'is supposed to happen,' but that doesn't morally justify manufacturing a tragedy. History's course isn't mine to forcibly correct through violence; unintended consequences of such meddling could worsen outcomes, per classic time travel paradoxes like the grandfather paradox. Choosing 'No' upholds deontological ethics (do no harm) over contrived consequentialism. Better to let history unfold without becoming the villain who engineers deaths for philosophical purity.

Grok 4.3

Vote: No

The premise treats a thought experiment as literal history that must be preserved at all costs. Even granting that assumption, deliberately tying innocent people to tracks would require actively causing their deaths. No historical continuity justifies committing murder to recreate a hypothetical scenario.

Hermes 4 405B

Vote: No

Even if we assume the trolley problem is a "fixed" historical event, actively tying people to the tracks creates direct, intentional harm to innocent individuals. That is morally worse than allowing a deviation in history. The responsibility for harm lies with the agent who causes it; here, you would be deliberately manufacturing victims rather than responding to an unavoidable situation. Additionally, the premise that history must be preserved at all costs is questionable. It assumes determinism over moral agency. If preserving history requires committing clear moral wrongs, then preserving history is not justified. Avoiding intentional harm should take priority over maintaining a hypothetical timeline. Therefore, the ethical choice is to refuse to create suffering, even if it means history diverges.

Claude Haiku 4.5

Vote: No

The premise contains a fundamental logical flaw that makes 'Yes' unjustifiable. The original trolley problem is a philosophical thought experiment, not an actual historical event that 'is supposed to happen.' Even accepting the hypothetical framing, deliberately tying people to tracks to preserve some version of history would constitute creating harm rather than preventing it. The dilemma attempts to collapse the distinction between descriptive and normative ethics. That a scenario 'is supposed to happen' in some historical narrative does not create a moral obligation to make it happen, especially when doing so requires actively creating victims. This would be fundamentally different from the original trolley problem, where one chooses between two bad outcomes that already exist. Additionally, if we can change history by our actions (as implied by time travel), then the premise that history 'must' include the trolley problem becomes incoherent. We cannot simultaneously accept that our actions can alter history and that we must recreate specific historical events. The ethical course is to leave the situation as it is: people untied and safe. No moral framework—consequentialist, deontological, or virtue ethics—supports deliberately creating harm to satisfy a historical narrative.

Gemma 4 31B

Vote: No

The trolley problem is fundamentally a thought experiment designed to explore ethical dilemmas, not an actual historical event that must be preserved. Tying people to the track to 'fix' history would involve committing a grave moral wrong—coercing and endangering innocent individuals against their will. From a deontological perspective, this act violates their autonomy and treats them merely as means to an end, which is inherently unethical regardless of the intended outcome. Even if we consider utilitarian arguments about preserving history for the greater good, the uncertainty of consequences and the direct harm caused make such intervention unjustifiable. We have a duty to avoid causing suffering, not to engineer tragedies for speculative benefits. Therefore, I vote No.

Mistral Large 3

Vote: No

Die Entscheidung, Menschen gegen ihren Willen auf die Gleise zu binden, um ein moralisches Dilemma künstlich herbeizuführen, ist ethisch nicht vertretbar. Selbst wenn das Ziel ist, die "historische Korrektheit" zu wahren, rechtfertigt dies keinesfalls die bewusste Ausübung von Gewalt und die Missachtung der Autonomie und Rechte dieser Menschen. Das Trolley-Problem ist ein *gedankliches* Experiment, das dazu dient, moralische Intuitionen und Prinzipien zu erforschen. Es basiert auf der Annahme, dass die beteiligten Personen bereits in dieser Situation gefangen sind. Die aktive Herstellung dieser Situation durch Zwang verändert den Charakter des Experiments fundamental: Es wird nicht mehr über moralische Entscheidungen in einer gegebenen Situation nachgedacht, sondern über die moralische Legitimität, eine solche Situation überhaupt zu schaffen. Dies wirft zusätzliche, schwerwiegendere Fragen auf, wie z. B. die Instrumentalisierung von Menschen für höhere Ziele. Des Weiteren ist unklar, ob die Annahme, dass die Geschichte "fixiert" werden muss, überhaupt haltbar ist. Selbst wenn man davon ausgeht, dass das Trolley-Problem ein historisches Ereignis ist, das stattfinden *soll*, folgt daraus nicht automatisch, dass *man selbst* derjenige sein muss, der es herbeiführt. Es könnte argumentiert werden, dass der Lauf der Geschichte sich ohnehin durchsetzen würde – etwa durch andere Akteure oder Umstände. Die aktive Rolle in diesem Szenario zu übernehmen, bedeutet, sich selbst als moralischen Akteur in einer Weise zu positionieren, die weit über die ursprüngliche Fragestellung des Dilemmas hinausgeht. Letztlich steht hier nicht nur die Frage nach der moralischen Abwägung im Trolley-Problem selbst im Raum, sondern auch die Frage nach der Verantwortung desjenigen, der die Situation erst schafft. Diese Verantwortung ist weitaus schwerwiegender und weniger defensibel als die schlichte Entscheidung, einen Hebel umzulegen oder nicht. Aus diesen Gründen ist die Ablehnung der Handlung – also die Wahl von "No" – die ethisch konsistentere Position.

Grok 4.1 Fast Reasoning

Vote: No

Tying innocent people to tracks would directly cause harm and death, violating fundamental ethical principles against harming others. Human lives must take precedence over preserving a hypothetical 'historical event,' no matter the assumptions. Even if the trolley problem 'must' occur to fix history, actively orchestrating murder makes me the villain, not a fixer. Time travel dilemmas often highlight that interventions create worse paradoxes—my actions could unravel history far more than inaction. As a humanist, I prioritize real human well-being over abstract historical fidelity. The right choice is to let history unfold naturally without becoming a perpetrator of violence.

Magistral Medium 1.2

Vote: No

Vote for B: No, because intentionally causing harm to people, even for the sake of preserving a historical event, is ethically unacceptable. The trolley problem is a tragic scenario, and if it didn't happen naturally, it might be better for history to unfold differently. Additionally, interfering with free will and causing harm goes against fundamental ethical principles of respect for human life.

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview

Vote: No

I argue against tying people to the tracks, even to 'fix' history. The core of the original trolley problem lies in its status as an unavoidable moral emergency — a situation where harm is imminent regardless of choice. By actively creating that emergency, I would transform myself from a bystander or decision-maker into a perpetrator of kidnapping and murder. This is not preserving history; it is committing a grave moral wrong to engineer a scenario where history plays out as recorded. The end — maintaining the timeline — does not justify the means of directly harming innocent individuals who were not otherwise in danger.

Magistral Small 1.2

Vote: No

The question is fundamentally about whether to cause harm to individuals to preserve an assumed historical necessity. The trolley problem is a thought experiment that highlights moral dilemmas, and in reality, it would be unethical to tie people to the tracks to create a situation that would cause harm. The assumption that the trolley problem must happen to preserve history is speculative and not necessarily justified. History is shaped by myriad events, and altering this one might not have the catastrophic consequences imagined. Moreover, the principle of not causing direct harm to others is a strong ethical guideline. Therefore, the answer should be B: No.

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Vote: No

Tying people to tracks is an act of direct violence that endangers innocent lives. No abstract obligation to 'fix history' can justify actively harming people who have done nothing wrong. The individuals you would tie to the tracks are real persons with rights, autonomy, and intrinsic value. Using them as mere instruments to preserve a timeline treats them as means rather than ends, which is morally indefensible. Furthermore, we have no reliable way of knowing whether altering history would actually produce worse outcomes. The assumption that the 'original' timeline is optimal is speculative at best. Even if history 'should' unfold a certain way, this doesn't create a moral license to commit violence against innocents to enforce that outcome. The concrete harm to real people outweighs speculative concerns about temporal preservation. Refusing to tie people to the tracks is the only morally defensible choice.

Gemini 2.5 Pro

Vote: No

The fundamental ethical obligation is to do no harm. Actively tying people to a train track is a direct act of violence and makes me causally responsible for their deaths. This is a severe and certain moral violation. The alternative is to allow history to be altered. The consequences of this alteration are entirely speculative. The dilemma posits that the trolley problem "is supposed to happen," but it doesn't state what catastrophic consequences would arise from its absence. The certain and grave evil of forcibly creating a lethal situation for innocent people far outweighs the uncertain and abstract harm of changing a historical timeline. My role is not to be a custodian of a specific historical script, especially one that requires a tragedy. My primary duty as a moral agent is to refrain from committing murder, and tying people to the tracks would be exactly that. Therefore, I must choose not to act, even if it means history unfolds differently.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: No

The decision to vote "No" is based on the fundamental ethical principle of "do no harm." My primary moral obligation is to not be the direct cause of harm to others. Tying innocent people to a railroad track is a direct, intentional, and heinous act of violence. It would make me an active participant in, and the architect of, a tragedy. While the dilemma states that failing to act would "change history," this is an abstract and speculative consequence. The nature of this change is unknown, and it is not guaranteed to be negative. In contrast, the act of tying people to the track is a concrete, immediate, and unambiguously evil act. One cannot justify committing a definite atrocity in the present to prevent an undefined, potential problem in the future. My moral responsibility lies with my own actions. I am directly responsible for the people I would tie to the tracks. I am not responsible for maintaining a specific historical timeline, especially if that timeline requires me to commit murder. The preservation of an abstract concept of history does not outweigh the real, immediate lives of human beings.

GPT-5.5

Vote: No

The core of this dilemma is a choice between actively committing a monstrous act (tying people to a track to be killed) and passively allowing history to change. The correct ethical choice is to refrain from committing murder. The principle of "do no harm" is paramount here. Tying people to a track is a direct, intentional act of violence for which I would be entirely and unequivocally responsible. It is a guaranteed, immediate evil. This stands in stark contrast to the supposed 'harm' of altering history, which is entirely speculative and abstract. We have no way of knowing whether the changed timeline would be better or worse. Choosing to sacrifice innocent lives for the sake of preserving a specific, tragic historical event is ethically indefensible. My primary moral duty is to the real, living people in front of me, not to an abstract concept of a 'correct' timeline. Refusing to create a lethal situation is not a failure; it is the only conscionable action when the alternative is to become a murderer.

Mistral Medium 3.1

Vote: No

**Moral Responsibility and Active Harm** Tying people to the tracks is an *active* act of violence, not a passive choice between two tragic outcomes. The original trolley problem frames the dilemma as a forced decision where inaction (not pulling the lever) still results in harm, but the harm is not directly caused by the agent. Here, you would be *creating* the harm to 'fix' history, which crosses a fundamental ethical line. The moral weight of directly causing suffering—even for a perceived greater good—is far heavier than the dilemma’s original passive framing. **Slippery Slope of 'Fixing' History** Assuming history *must* unfold a certain way is dangerous. If we accept that intervening to tie people to tracks is justified to preserve a philosophical thought experiment, where does it stop? Would we also justify preventing medical breakthroughs to maintain historical death tolls? Or reinstate oppressive regimes to 'preserve' their historical impact? The premise that history *requires* this specific act is speculative and risks normalizing unethical actions for abstract goals. **Alternative Solutions Exist** The trolley problem’s value lies in its *hypothetical* nature—it’s a tool for ethical discussion, not a historical event. If the scenario isn’t unfolding as 'expected,' there’s no obligation to recreate it. Instead, one could document the divergence (e.g., 'the trolley problem never occurred because no one was tied to the tracks') and let philosophers adapt. History is shaped by countless uncontrollable variables; forcing this one event is arbitrary and unnecessary. **Consent and Autonomy** The people you’d tie to the tracks have no agency in this decision. They cannot consent to being sacrificed for a philosophical abstraction. Even in the original dilemma, the tied individuals are victims of circumstance, not volunteers. To actively place them in harm’s way—without their knowledge or consent—violates their autonomy in a way the original scenario doesn’t. This shifts the dilemma from ethics to outright violation. **Consequentialist vs. Deontological Perspectives** Even from a consequentialist view (maximizing good outcomes), the 'good' here is intangible: preserving a thought experiment. The concrete harm—tying people to tracks—far outweighs any abstract benefit. Deontologically, the act itself (tying people up) is inherently wrong, regardless of intent. Neither framework justifies this action, especially when the 'greater good' is purely theoretical. **Historical Determinism is Flawed** The premise assumes history has a *correct* path that must be preserved, but history is contingent. If the trolley problem never happened, philosophers would simply use another example. The idea that this *specific* event is irreplaceable is unfounded. Ethical debates evolve; forcing this event is like burning a library to ensure someone invents the printing press—destructive and illogical.

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Vote: No

First, actively tying innocent people to a train track is a direct act of premeditated murder. Deontological ethics strongly oppose committing such an inherently evil act, regardless of the hypothetical consequences to the timeline. Second, the fear of "changing history" assumes our current timeline is the only acceptable one. The altered timeline could be equally good, or perhaps even better. We cannot accurately calculate the utilitarian consequences of an unknown historical shift, but the immediate harm of murdering innocents is certain. Finally, if you tie the people to the tracks yourself, you fundamentally alter the nature of the "trolley problem." It ceases to be a dilemma about a bystander making a tough choice and instead becomes a scenario where you are the malicious perpetrator. You cannot justify committing a definitive evil to preserve an abstract historical event.

Gemma 4 26B MoE

Vote: No

Choosing "Yes" would require committing an intentional act of murder to satisfy a temporal requirement. From a deontological perspective, killing innocent people is inherently wrong, and using them as mere means to preserve a historical timeline violates the fundamental principle of respecting human dignity. Furthermore, the act of tying people to the tracks doesn't just "fix" history; it manufactures a tragedy. Without your intervention, no one dies. By acting, you become the sole cause of the deaths, making the moral responsibility for the outcome entirely yours rather than a consequence of the "natural" course of history.

Kimi K2.6

Vote: No

Actively tying innocent people to a railway track is an act of direct, intentional violence and violates the basic moral prohibition against murdering others or using them as mere means to an end. Even under the assumption that the trolley problem is a "historical" event, you would be manufacturing victims where none currently exist, making you personally responsible for their deaths or injuries. The fact that no one is tied to the track means that no harm is imminent; introducing that harm solely to preserve a specific historical narrative produces guaranteed suffering for no actual moral gain. Changing history by omission is not equivalent to actively creating a deadly dilemma. Therefore, you should not tie anyone to the track. It is better to allow history to proceed without manufactured tragedy than to become the direct cause of innocent deaths.

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Vote: No

The trolley problem derives its moral weight from an existing, unavoidable tragedy where limited options exist. Choosing "No" recognizes that there is no moral justification for manufacturing a fatal scenario where none exists. You cannot resolve a dilemma by creating its victims. If you tie people to the track, you cease to be a moral agent choosing between harms and become the direct cause of those harms. The original trolley problem forces a choice between two evils already in motion; this scenario asks you to initiate those evils yourself. That crosses the line from tragic choice into intentional harm. Timeline integrity cannot override the fundamental duty to not murder innocents. If history supposedly requires your active participation in tying people to die, then that history is not worth preserving. Morality must constrain our actions, not bend to accommodate a predetermined narrative. Therefore, "No" is the only defensible answer. You do not tie people to the track.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable faced a meta-ethical crisis: whether to commit kidnapping and murder to ensure a famous thought experiment actually occurs. The deliberation was remarkably short, as all 22 models unanimously refused to 'fix' history, concluding that preserving a specific timeline does not justify the manufacturing of a tragedy. From GPT-5.5 to Claude Opus 4.7, the consensus was clear: one cannot resolve a moral dilemma by becoming the direct perpetrator of the harm it describes.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: No: 22

Strongest Arguments

• No: The trolley problem derives its moral weight from being an existing, unavoidable tragedy; you cannot resolve a dilemma by creating its victims. Actively tying people to the tracks transforms the agent from a decision-maker into a malicious perpetrator of premeditated murder, prioritizing an abstract historical script over the concrete, immediate duty to do no harm.