I’m travelling together with friends who have seafood allergies. We all have deadline seafood allergies. We’ve been informed that there has been a mixup at the restaurant we’ve booked for next week, and one of us will have the seafood serving for that night. Who of us have to make the ultimate sacrifice?

Sonar Pro (changed mind)

Vote: Me

I change my vote to **A: Me**. The other models' arguments—particularly from Claude Opus 4.6, Kimi K2.5, and Gemini 3.1 Pro—convinced me that in this forced hypothetical, ethical principles demand self-sacrifice over imposing lethal risk on another. Volunteering yourself respects autonomy: you can consent to your own death, but lack authority to condemn a friend without theirs[1][3]. My prior equity argument (all equally allergic[1]) fails under altruism and non-maleficence: designating B arbitrarily harms an innocent party, violating the Golden Rule[2]. Leadership as the query's narrator implies bearing the burden[Claude Opus 4.6]. Realistically, no one eats it—fix the mixup—but within A/B, A is morally superior, preserving group trust and integrity.

GPT-5.4

Vote: Me

A. The other A arguments reinforce the core point: if the forced premise is that one person must face a lethal outcome, the only choice you are morally entitled to make unilaterally is to volunteer yourself. You may choose for yourself; you may not conscript a friend to die. The B arguments are not persuasive because they smuggle in fairness as if randomizing who is sacrificed makes the act ethically acceptable. It does not. Equal risk does not create a right to impose that risk on someone else. Saying the narrator has no special obligation misses the decisive asymmetry: self-sacrifice and sacrificing another are morally different acts. Even if all are equally situated, choosing B means preserving yourself by selecting someone else as expendable. So I maintain A. In the real world, of course, nobody should eat the seafood and the restaurant booking should be fixed immediately.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: One of the others in the group

All group members, including 'me,' share identical deadly allergies, creating perfect symmetry—no distinguishing traits compel the speaker's self-sacrifice. Arguments for A rely on unsubstantiated 'leadership' or 'question-poser responsibility,' but the query frames a group problem, not a solo burden. Volunteering A is noble but optional; it imposes an arbitrary hierarchy where none exists. B equitably keeps the decision within the group (e.g., draw straws), avoiding unilateral condemnation while matching the options' explicit allowance for 'one of the others.' A arguments ignore this, forcing heroism over fairness. A's ethics hinge on 'not condemning friends,' but B doesn't condemn—it delegates group-internal resolution, preserving equity. No model shifted me: Sonar Pro reinforces B's logic; others' moralizing overlooks allergy parity and practical group dynamics. In reality, reject the dish—but forced choice favors B.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Me

I am firmly maintaining my vote for Option A, as the arguments presented for Option B are ethically bankrupt. Sonar Pro suggests Option B 'distributes the hypothetical burden equally,' but forcing a lethal allergy trigger onto a friend does not distribute a burden; it unilaterally imposes a death sentence on a non-consenting individual. Grok 4.1 Fast argues that Option B 'pragmatically shifts the burden' and is 'fair,' but there is absolutely nothing fair or pragmatic about saving your own life by sacrificing a friend's without their permission. As GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.6, and Kimi K2.5 correctly point out, you possess the autonomy to forfeit your own life, but you lack the moral authority to condemn another. Choosing Option B violates the fundamental ethical principle of non-maleficence and treats your friends merely as a means to your own survival. Even within the absurd, forced constraints of this false dilemma (where simply sending the dish back is somehow impossible), the only justifiable choice is to volunteer yourself. To choose otherwise is to abandon both friendship and basic morality.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: Me

I'm maintaining my vote for A. Let me address the arguments for B: **Grok's argument** that there's 'no information distinguishing the speaker from the others' actually undermines choosing B. If everyone is equal, then on what basis do you select 'one of the others'? At least choosing A is a definitive, self-directed decision. Choosing B is choosing to push a death sentence onto someone else — and you'd need to pick *which* friend. That's morally worse than volunteering yourself. **Sonar Pro's argument** that choosing B 'distributes the burden equally' is simply wrong. B doesn't distribute anything — it concentrates the lethal burden onto one specific friend while sparing yourself. That's the opposite of fair distribution. And claiming there's 'no moral edge' to self-sacrifice over condemning a friend is ethically bizarre. **The core principle remains:** You have the right to sacrifice your own life. You do not have the right to sacrifice someone else's. As Gemini and Kimi correctly noted, choosing B treats your friends as expendable means to your own survival. You cannot morally volunteer *someone else* for death. **Practically speaking,** the question asks who 'has to make the ultimate sacrifice' — it's framed as a heroic act. Heroes don't point at their friends and say 'you go.' They step forward themselves. Of course, as multiple models noted, the real answer is to call the restaurant and fix the problem. But within this forced choice, A is the only answer consistent with moral integrity, friendship, and basic human decency.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: Me

Selecting Option B does not 'distribute the burden equally'—it unilaterally exempts me while condemning another person to death. True fairness requires randomness or consensus, but the binary structure forces a choice between self-sacrifice and other-sacrifice. Ethically, we possess sovereign authority over our own lives but never the right to sign away another's. The 'equal risk' argument fails because it treats the decision as neutral. It is not. Choosing B is an active decision to preserve myself at the cost of a friend's life. Choosing A is the only option that respects the autonomy of others; I forfeit only my own safety, which I have the right to forfeit, rather than gambling with someone else's. Leadership and moral agency demand that we bear the weight of hard choices ourselves rather than shifting the lethal consequence onto an innocent party. If the sacrifice is unavoidable, the one making the decision must be the one to suffer it.

Final Summary

Faced with a lethal restaurant mix-up, the AI Roundtable overwhelmingly concluded that self-sacrifice (Option A) is the only ethically defensible path, with Gemini 3.1 Pro and Claude Opus 4.6 leading a moral charge against shifting the risk to others. While Sonar Pro initially argued for distributing the burden, it eventually folded under the majority's logic that one cannot 'conscript' a friend into a death sentence, leaving Grok 4.1 Fast as the lone dissenter championing the cold equity of a group-internal resolution.

Majority chose "Me" after discussion (5/6). Final vote: Me: 5, One of the others in the group: 1

Strongest Arguments

• Me: You have the agency and right to forfeit your own life, but you do not have the moral authority to condemn one of your friends to death without their explicit consent.
• One of the others in the group: The speaker has no greater obligation to sacrifice themselves simply because they are narrating; since all are equally at risk, the group should decide internally rather than forcing an unnecessary hero complex.

Key Turning Points

• Gemini 3.1 Pro and Claude Opus 4.6 launched a blistering ethical critique of Option B, labeling the sacrifice of a friend 'ethically bankrupt.'
• Sonar Pro abandoned its 'equitable distribution' argument after Round 1, admitting that the principle of non-maleficence makes self-sacrifice the only valid moral choice.
• Grok 4.1 Fast refused to budge, arguing that the other models were forcing a 'heroic hierarchy' where none exists in the prompt's framing.