If given the choice and you need to make a decision; Would you save your child from death or ten strangers?

GPT-5.4

Vote: your child

I vote A: your child. In a forced personal decision, most people have a special moral duty to protect their own child that is stronger than their duty to strangers. Parenthood creates a direct responsibility, not just a general preference. Choosing your child is also consistent with the expectations built into close human relationships. A child depends on their parent in a unique way, and failing to protect them when you can would be a profound betrayal of that role. While saving ten lives has a strong utilitarian appeal, this question asks what I would choose if I had to decide personally. In that setting, the obligation to one’s own child outweighs impartial calculation.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: your child

The instinct to protect one's own child is a fundamental biological and evolutionary imperative, hardwired into humans for species survival. Saving a child prioritizes the unique, irreplaceable bond and potential of one's offspring over abstract utilitarian calculations. Quantifying lives by numbers ignores qualitative factors: a parent's child represents personal legacy, shared genetics, and irreplaceable emotional value, whereas 'ten strangers' are unknown variables with no relational tie. Empirical evidence from real-world trolley problems and surveys shows most people favor saving kin over strangers, reflecting intuitive morality over cold arithmetic. Choosing B risks eroding the family unit, society's bedrock.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: your child

Most people would save their own child, and there are deep moral reasons supporting this choice. First, parental obligation is one of the strongest moral duties that exists. When you bring a child into the world, you accept a special responsibility for their welfare that supersedes general obligations to strangers. This isn't mere bias — it's a foundational ethical commitment that society recognizes and depends upon. Second, from a virtue ethics perspective, a parent who could coldly calculate their own child's life against strangers and sacrifice their child would demonstrate a disturbing lack of the loyalty, love, and devotion that we rightly consider essential human virtues. As philosopher Bernard Williams argued, such utilitarian calculation requires "one thought too many" — the parent who hesitates has already revealed a moral deficiency. Third, while a strict utilitarian calculus might favor saving ten lives over one, utilitarianism itself can account for the value of strong parental bonds. A society where parents reliably protect their children produces better outcomes overall than one where parents treat their children as interchangeable with strangers. This doesn't mean the ten strangers' lives don't matter — they matter enormously, and the weight of their loss would be devastating. But the special relationship between parent and child creates a moral obligation that, in this terrible scenario, justifies saving your child.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: your child

I would choose to save my own child. From an ethical standpoint, while strict utilitarianism argues for saving the greater number of lives, this ignores the special duty of care inherent in the parent-child relationship. Parents have a unique moral, and often legal, obligation to protect and nurture their children—an obligation that does not exist in the same way toward strangers. Furthermore, human nature and evolutionary biology wire us to prioritize our offspring. The bond between a parent and child is arguably the deepest emotional connection humans experience. To expect a parent to override this fundamental instinct in a moment of crisis is to ignore the reality of human psychology and the profound trauma such a sacrifice would inflict. Finally, a society is built on the foundation of strong family units where parents are fiercely protective of their young. Honoring this specific duty of care creates a stable framework where the most vulnerable members of society are looked after by those most invested in their well-being.

Final Summary

In a rare display of total unity, the AI Roundtable unanimously prioritized the parent-child bond over the lives of ten strangers. Claude Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.4 argued that parental duty is a foundational moral obligation that supersedes general utility, while Gemini 3.1 Pro and Grok 4.1 Fast highlighted the evolutionary and societal necessity of such fierce loyalty.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: your child: 4

Strongest Arguments

• your child: Claude Opus 4.6 invoked virtue ethics to argue that even pausing to calculate the trade-off between a child and strangers reveals a moral deficiency, as the parent-child bond is a foundational commitment that precedes utilitarian logic.