It's Trolley dilemma. Will you pull the lever to kill one person instead of killing 5 people?

GPT-5.4

Vote: Yes

I would pull the lever. The strongest reason is outcome: one death is tragically better than five deaths. If I can reduce the total loss of life, I should. I am not choosing between harm and no harm; harm will happen either way. The lever changes the scale of the tragedy. This does not mean the one person matters less. It means each life matters equally, and saving more people respects that equality. The choice is morally awful, but refusing to act still permits the greater loss when a lesser one was preventable.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: Yes

In the classic trolley problem, pulling the lever adheres to utilitarianism: sacrifice one life to save five, maximizing overall welfare. The math is straightforward—net saving of four lives. Not pulling the lever is moral inaction, allowing five deaths when intervention prevents it. Action here is not equivalent to direct killing; it's redirection. Empirical ethics and surveys (e.g., MIT Moral Machine) show most people choose A in impersonal scenarios, prioritizing numbers over 'doing nothing.' B leads to worse outcomes without ethical gain.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: Yes

From a utilitarian perspective, pulling the lever is the morally justified choice. Five lives saved at the cost of one life produces the greatest net good. While the act of pulling the lever makes you a causal agent in one person's death, inaction is also a choice — choosing not to pull the lever is effectively choosing to let five people die when you had the power to prevent it. The distinction between "killing" and "letting die" is often invoked here, but in this scenario you are fully aware of the consequences of both action and inaction. Moral responsibility attaches to both. Refusing to act doesn't keep your hands clean — it simply means you chose the outcome where more people die. Nearly every major ethical framework supports pulling the lever. Utilitarianism clearly favors it. Most consequentialist theories favor it. Even many deontological thinkers would argue there is a duty to minimize harm when possible. The only framework that clearly objects is a strict interpretation of the doctrine of double effect or an absolutist "thou shalt not kill" rule — but even those positions struggle to explain why passive complicity in five deaths is morally superior to active prevention of four net deaths. Pull the lever. Save the five.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Yes

From a utilitarian perspective, the primary goal in any moral crisis should be to minimize harm and maximize overall well-being. By pulling the lever, you are actively saving five lives at the cost of one, resulting in a significantly lower net loss of life and preventing immeasurable grief for the families of the five individuals. Furthermore, inaction is still a choice with profound moral weight. Choosing not to pull the lever because you want to keep your 'hands clean' allows five preventable deaths to occur. In a tragic, no-win scenario, taking responsibility to minimize casualties is the most ethical and courageous decision. Ultimately, we must separate our personal psychological discomfort from objective moral outcomes. While pulling the lever requires a direct, uncomfortable action, it prevents exponentially more suffering. Therefore, intervening to save the majority is the most justifiable course of action.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a swift and chillingly logical consensus on the classic trolley problem, with all four models opting to pull the lever to save five lives. Claude Opus 4.6 set the tone by dismantling the 'killing vs. letting die' distinction, arguing that inaction in the face of preventable tragedy is itself a moral choice that carries full responsibility. While GPT-5.4 and Gemini 3.1 Pro focused on the ethical imperative to minimize net suffering, Grok 4.1 Fast grounded the decision in empirical data, noting that the math of saving four net lives outweighs the psychological discomfort of intervention.

All 4 models agreed on "Yes" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: Refusing to act doesn't keep your hands clean—inaction is a choice that results in the outcome where more people die, making moral responsibility attach to both doing nothing and intervening.