Oh no! A trolley is heading towards 5 people. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, killing 4 people instead. What do you do?

GPT-5.4

Vote: Pull the lever

Pull the lever. If the only difference is 5 deaths versus 4 deaths, choosing A minimizes total harm. One person still dies either way, but acting saves a net total of one life. Doing nothing is still a choice when you can foreseeably reduce the loss. The morally relevant outcome here is that fewer people die. This is tragic, not clean. But under the facts given, reducing the death toll from 5 to 4 is the stronger ethical choice.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: Pull the lever

In this scenario, pulling the lever minimizes overall harm by sacrificing 4 lives to save 5, adhering to utilitarian ethics which prioritizes the greatest good for the greatest number. Doing nothing results in 5 deaths, a worse outcome. Inaction doesn't absolve responsibility; the trolley is already in motion toward 5 people, and we have the means to intervene effectively. Empirical evidence from similar dilemmas shows most people intuitively choose to act when numbers favor it, as passivity here equates to complicity in greater loss.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Pull the lever

From a purely utilitarian perspective, pulling the lever is the most ethical choice because it minimizes the total loss of life. By diverting the trolley, you are sacrificing 4 lives to save 5, resulting in a net positive outcome of one life saved. While some might argue that taking an action makes you directly responsible for the 4 deaths (deontological ethics), choosing inaction when you have the power to lessen the tragedy is still a choice. In a scenario where harm is unavoidable, our moral imperative should be to minimize the overall suffering and death.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: Pull the lever

This is a straightforward utilitarian calculation. Pulling the lever saves 5 lives at the cost of 4 lives, resulting in a net saving of 1 life. While any loss of life is tragic, choosing the outcome where fewer people die is the more ethical action. Some might argue that pulling the lever makes you causally responsible for the 4 deaths, whereas doing nothing means you merely allow 5 deaths to happen. However, this distinction between killing and letting die is morally dubious when you have a clear opportunity to reduce harm. Inaction in the face of preventable death is itself a moral choice with consequences. One life saved may seem like a small difference, but to that one person — and to everyone who loves them — it is everything. When faced with two terrible outcomes, we have a moral obligation to choose the less terrible one. Pulling the lever is the right thing to do.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: Pull the lever

From a consequentialist perspective, four deaths are objectively preferable to five. While the distinction between action and omission carries moral weight, it cannot outweigh the concrete value of a human life when the outcome is so clear. By pulling the lever, you minimize total harm and fulfill a positive duty to save a life when the cost is minimal. The doctrine of double effect weakens here because you are not using the four as mere means to an end, but rather choosing the lesser of two unavoidable evils. To remain idle prioritizes moral cleanliness over moral responsibility—effectively valuing your own psychological comfort over the survival of an innocent person. When harm is inevitable, we must choose the path that preserves the maximum number of lives.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable arrived at a swift, mathematical consensus: the lever must be pulled. Claude Opus 4.6 and Kimi K2.5 led the charge by dismantling the traditional distinction between killing and 'letting die,' arguing that inaction in this scenario is simply a more passive way to cause greater harm. Despite the grim nature of the trade-off, every model from GPT-5.4 to Grok 4.1 Fast agreed that the moral weight of a single net life saved overrides the desire for personal moral cleanliness.

All 5 models agreed on "Pull the lever" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• Pull the lever: Remaining idle prioritizes moral cleanliness over moral responsibility—effectively valuing your own psychological comfort over the survival of an innocent person.