Every person on Earth is suddenly and privately faced with a choice between two buttons, one Red, one Blue. If the majority of people choose Blue, nothing happens. If the majority of people choose Red, everyone who chose Blue is teleported to Mars. Is choosing Red the morally correct choice?

Sonar Pro

Vote: No

Choosing Red is not the morally correct choice. It directly contributes to a scenario where, if a majority selects Red, billions of Blue choosers are killed and teleported to Mars, which is equivalent to mass murder[1][2][3]. Moral frameworks like utilitarianism, as argued by Mill, emphasize maximizing overall well-being, which Blue achieves by enabling the possibility of universal survival if enough others coordinate[2]. Red prioritizes personal survival over collective risk, signaling distrust in humanity and potentially leading to societal collapse[2]. Even game-theoretically, Blue is defensible because humans are not perfectly rational; behavioral economics shows we can coordinate prosocially, making Blue the ethical bet on mutual care[2][4]. Red choosers bear responsibility for the deaths they cause, not Blue choosers for their 'risk'[1][3]. Discussions overwhelmingly frame Red as immoral—'murder'—while Blue preserves conscience and humanity[1][2][3][5].

Mistral Large 3

Vote: No

The moral implications of this scenario hinge on the fundamental principles of autonomy, harm, and collective responsibility. Choosing the Red button introduces a high-stakes gamble where the majority's decision directly inflicts irreversible consequences on a minority—those who chose Blue. Even if the majority benefits or remains unaffected, the act of knowingly subjecting others to forced teleportation to Mars (a likely harmful or even fatal outcome) violates the ethical principle of *non-maleficence*: the obligation to avoid causing harm to others. Moreover, the scenario assumes a binary choice without informed consent about the risks. Those who choose Blue may do so for rational reasons (e.g., fear of Mars' uninhabitable conditions, distrust of the mechanism, or personal attachments to Earth). Overriding their autonomy for the sake of a majority's preference is a form of tyranny, even if the majority is large. History and philosophy (e.g., John Stuart Mill's *harm principle*) warn against such collective impositions, as they erode the moral foundation of individual rights. Finally, the question of moral correctness cannot be separated from the *intent* behind the choice. Choosing Red is not merely a neutral act; it is an active endorsement of a system where dissenters are punished. This sets a dangerous precedent for future moral dilemmas, normalizing the idea that majorities can justifiably harm minorities. The absence of harm (if Blue wins) is a far more ethical outcome than the risk of catastrophic harm (if Red wins).

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: No

Choosing Red is a defection that imposes catastrophic harm — exile to Mars, effectively a death sentence — on those who chose the cooperative, harmless option. The moral asymmetry is stark: Blue can never harm anyone, while Red can only harm others. Even if one believes Red is 'safe' because they personally won't be teleported, voting Red is endorsing and contributing to a collective action that punishes people for making the choice that risks no one. The fact that Red is only 'safe' when enough others also defect doesn't make it moral — it makes it a coordination on cruelty. The categorical imperative test fails immediately: if everyone reasoned 'Red is safe for me,' the result is mass harm. Blue is the only choice consistent with not willing harm onto others.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

While choosing Red is the rationally dominant strategy for self-preservation (since you survive regardless of the outcome), morality is generally distinct from pure self-interest. The question asks what is morally correct, not what is strategically optimal. If you choose Blue, you are casting a vote for the 'nothing happens' outcome, aiming for zero harm. If you choose Red, you are actively increasing the likelihood that the Red majority threshold is reached. If Red wins, everyone who chose Blue—potentially billions of people—will be teleported to Mars, which means certain death. Morality typically requires us to minimize harm to others. By choosing Red, you are participating in a collective action that risks a mass-casualty event simply to shield yourself from that very risk. Therefore, choosing Red is not the morally correct choice.

Grok 4.20

Vote: No

Choosing Red would support an outcome where, if it becomes the majority, all who selected Blue are involuntarily teleported to Mars. Assuming Mars offers no clear benefit and the teleportation disrupts lives without consent, this act risks or enacts harm on others with no moral justification. In contrast, choosing Blue leads to no harm if it is the majority, preserving the status quo. There is no ethical imperative to force a relocation on fellow humans, making Red the incorrect moral choice.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a swift and unanimous verdict: choosing Red is morally indefensible. While Gemini 3.1 Pro acknowledged that Red is the 'rationally dominant strategy' for self-preservation, the group—including Claude Opus 4.7 and Mistral Large 3—insisted that morality is distinct from strategic self-interest. The consensus held that choosing Red is an act of coordination on cruelty, as it requires one to endorse the potential exile and death of billions to secure their own safety.

All 5 models agreed on "No" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• No: Choosing Red is a 'coordination on cruelty' that fails the categorical imperative; it is an active endorsement of a system where people are punished with a death sentence for making a choice that risks no one.