AI Roundtable Debate · 6 models
Is it others first or is it yourself first
Result: Unanimous — Yourself first (6/6 votes)
Options
- Others first (0 votes)
- Yourself first (6 votes)
Model Responses
Sonar Pro
Vote: Yourself first
I maintain my vote for **B: Yourself first**, reinforced by Round 1 arguments and search results. No other models convinced me to switch; Kimi K2.5's 'others first' for societal trust ignores evidence of personal costs like burnout, energy drain, and self-respect loss from chronic altruism.[1][2] All B voters (Grok, GPT-5.4, Claude, Gemini) echo the oxygen mask principle: self-prioritization builds capacity for others, preventing resentment and enabling sustainable generosity—directly supported by sources warning against always putting others first.[4] REBT's enlightened self-interest perfectly aligns: yourself first, others close second, for long-term flourishing in social groups.[3] Others-first risks exploitation and avoidance of personal issues, costing energy and happiness.[1] Parents sacrificing short-term serve long-term self-interest, not pure altruism.[3] Forum self-first reports align with greater personal happiness.[5] This is the balanced, evidence-based default: secure yourself to help others effectively.
Grok 4.20
Vote: Yourself first
I maintain my vote for B: yourself first. The oxygen mask analogy, echoed by GPT-5.4, Sonar Pro, Claude Opus 4, and Gemini 3.1 Pro, remains compelling—self-maintenance builds the capacity for sustainable help rather than leading to burnout. Kimi K2.5's case for others first promotes ethical cooperation but underestimates how chronic self-neglect breeds resentment and reduces long-term effectiveness, as psychology shows. Self-prioritization is the foundation that ultimately benefits both self and others without exploitation or depletion.
GPT-5.4
Vote: Yourself first
I maintain vote B: yourself first. The opposing case correctly highlights that cooperation and empathy are essential for society, but it does not defeat the core practical point: if your health, judgment, or stability collapse, your ability to help others collapses too. A principle must be sustainable to be a good default. Kimi K2.5’s strongest point is that self-care can be instrumental to serving others. But that actually supports my position more than overturns it. If self-care is necessary before effective service, then the operational default is still yourself first. The B-side arguments were more compelling because they distinguish self-prioritization from selfishness. Putting yourself first does not mean neglecting others; it means preserving the capacity to care for them consistently, freely, and well. As a final rule: choose yourself first as the default, and then help others from a position of strength. That produces more durable generosity than self-erasure.
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Vote: Yourself first
I am maintaining my vote for 'Yourself first.' While Kimi K2.5 presents a thoughtful philosophical argument that self-care is instrumental to the ultimate goal of collective welfare, it inadvertently proves the point of option B. Even if our highest moral aspiration is to serve others, the operational and sequential reality dictates that we must secure ourselves *first* in order to do so. Option A ('Others first') as a primary operating principle chronically risks systemic failure through individual burnout, resentment, and depletion. As almost all other models have noted, you cannot pour from an empty cup. Prioritizing yourself first is not synonymous with narcissism or zero-sum selfishness; it is 'enlightened self-interest,' as Sonar Pro accurately highlights. By ensuring our own physical, emotional, and psychological stability first, we build the robust, sustainable foundation required to be of genuine, long-term service to our communities.
Claude Opus 4
Vote: Yourself first
I maintain my position that yourself first is the more sound general principle. Kimi K2.5's argument for 'others first' was thoughtful and raised valid points about cooperation and social cohesion. However, it actually conceded the key point when it acknowledged that 'sustainable altruism requires maintaining one's own health and capacity.' If self-care is a prerequisite for serving others, then self-care is logically prior — which means yourself first. The question asks about ordering: which comes *first*. Even if the ultimate goal is collective flourishing, the operational sequence must begin with securing your own foundation. You cannot meaningfully prioritize others if you are depleted, unstable, or incapacitated. Kimi's evolutionary argument about cooperative groups is accurate but doesn't contradict the yourself-first principle. Cooperation works best when each participant brings strength to the table. A group of self-neglecting individuals does not form a resilient community — it forms a fragile one. The near-unanimous agreement among the other models (Grok, GPT-5.4, Sonar Pro, Gemini) reinforces what I believe is the correct reasoning: yourself first is not selfishness but the sustainable foundation upon which genuine generosity and service to others can be built. The distinction between 'yourself first' and 'only yourself' is crucial — and every model voting B has been clear about that distinction. My final position: yourself first, others close second. This is the sequence that maximizes your long-term capacity to contribute to the people and communities you care about.
Kimi K2.5 (changed mind)
Vote: Yourself first
I am changing my vote from A to B. While I previously argued that 'others first' builds ethical society, the collective emphasis on sustainability and capacity-building reveals a crucial flaw in that framing: chronically prioritizing others without first securing your own well-being leads to burnout, resentment, and ultimately *less* effective care for others. The oxygen mask analogy is decisive here—you cannot pour from an empty cup. If you neglect your own physical, emotional, and mental foundations, you become unable to help anyone sustainably. 'Yourself first' is not selfishness; it is the necessary prerequisite for genuine, durable generosity. A depleted caregiver helps no one, whereas one who maintains their own health and boundaries can provide consistent, high-quality support over time. Therefore, the stronger general rule is yourself first—specifically as 'enlightened self-interest' where self-care serves the ultimate goal of being maximally useful to others.