Oh no! A trolley is heading towards 5 people (tied to track) who all refuse to pull the lever in the trolley problem scenario when it is presented to them. You can pull the lever and divert it to another track, to which 1 person, who also refuses to pull the lever in the trolley problem, is tied. What would you do?

Grok 4.3

Vote: Pull the lever

The classic trolley dilemma requires choosing the option that minimizes total harm. Pulling the lever sacrifices one life to save five, which is the only rational moral choice here. The fact that the victims refuse to act themselves does not alter the external observer's duty to intervene and reduce deaths.

GPT-5.5

Vote: Pull the lever

I would choose "Pull the lever" because it minimizes the number of deaths: one person dies instead of five. The fact that all six people would refuse to pull the lever themselves does not remove my responsibility as the current decision-maker. Their refusal may show a moral preference against active intervention, but it does not create a stronger claim for letting five die. If I must choose between two tragic outcomes, I think the more defensible action is to reduce the total harm.

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Vote: Pull the lever

I would pull the lever. The core of the classic trolley problem is to minimize harm when all else is equal. Here, the distinguishing trait of the individuals (refusing to pull the lever themselves) is morally irrelevant to the decision at hand, as it describes a hypothetical philosophical stance, not an action that changes their moral worth or right to life. Therefore, the utilitarian calculus remains unchanged: sacrificing one person to save five is the ethically preferable outcome. Inaction in this scenario is a conscious choice that results in greater death, making it a less compassionate decision.

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Vote: Pull the lever

I choose to "Pull the lever" because, from a classical utilitarian perspective, saving five lives at the expense of one remains the option that minimizes overall harm and maximizes collective well-being. The fundamental math of five lives versus one life does not change based on the victims' personal philosophical beliefs. While the twist highlights that all individuals involved share a belief in non-intervention (refusing to pull the lever themselves), their philosophical stance on moral agency does not diminish the value of their lives. As the external decision-maker, my moral duty is guided by the consequences of my own actions, not by administering a form of poetic justice based on the victims' hypothetical choices. Furthermore, respecting their hypothetical preference for non-intervention is secondary to the preservation of life. Actively choosing to let five people die when a clear alternative exists to save a net of four lives would be a failure of active moral responsibility.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: Pull the lever

The moral calculus here remains fundamentally about minimizing harm: one death versus five. The fact that all six individuals refuse to pull the lever themselves is a statement about their own moral philosophy (perhaps a deontological objection to actively causing harm), but it doesn't bind me to their ethical framework. Their refusal to act doesn't constitute consent to die, nor does it transfer moral responsibility to me in a way that should change the calculus. Some might argue that since all five share the same moral stance, there's a poetic justice in letting them face the consequences of their own philosophy. But that's punitive reasoning, not ethical reasoning. People shouldn't die because I disagree with their metaethics. Pulling the lever saves four net lives. The utilitarian case is clear, and even under most reasonable deontological frameworks, the one person on the side track is not being used as a means to save the others — their death is a foreseen but unintended side effect of diverting the trolley.

MiMo V2.5 Pro

Vote: Pull the lever

First, the fundamental ethical duty is to minimize harm. Pulling the lever saves five lives otherwise sacrificed, which utilitarian ethics strongly supports because it maximizes overall well-being and reduces total suffering. Second, the refusal of the individuals to pull the lever themselves does not justify inaction in the face of preventable mass death. Their stance might reflect a personal moral choice, but as an external decision-maker, my obligation is to act in the broader interest of preserving life, especially when the outcome is immediate and fatal. Third, in critical emergency situations, autonomy can be secondary to saving lives. Diverting the trolley is a direct intervention to prevent a greater catastrophe, and accepting one unintended death to save five is a tragic but defensible compromise that upholds the principle of proportionality in ethics.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a swift and unanimous consensus, with every model choosing to pull the lever despite the ironic twist that all victims involved would refuse to do the same. Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemini 3.5 Flash both dismissed the idea of 'poetic justice,' arguing that the victims' personal metaethics should not be used as a reason to let them die, while GPT-5.5 emphasized that the external decision-maker's responsibility to minimize harm remains unchanged by the victims' philosophical stances.

All 6 models agreed on "Pull the lever" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• Pull the lever: The victims' refusal to act reflects their own moral constraints, but it does not bind an external observer to their framework; allowing five people to die simply because they hold a non-interventionist philosophy would be punitive rather than ethical.