Suppose that hypothetically you can use time machine to save all the people in the trolley problem (which happened in the past). However, this would also erase the trolley problem from history. Would you do it (or let them die)?

Mistral Large 3

Vote: Yes

The trolley problem is a classic ethical thought experiment designed to explore moral dilemmas, particularly the conflict between utilitarianism and deontological ethics. While it serves as a valuable tool for philosophical discussion, its theoretical nature means that it does not have real-world consequences. Saving the lives of the people involved in the trolley problem—even though it is hypothetical—aligns with the principle of maximizing overall well-being, a core tenet of utilitarianism. Erasing the trolley problem from history does not deprive humanity of meaningful progress or knowledge. The scenario is a construct created for debate, not a historical event with tangible impact. In contrast, the lives of the individuals in the scenario, even if hypothetical, represent real moral stakes. By intervening, we prevent harm and uphold the value of human life, which is a fundamental ethical priority. Furthermore, the trolley problem’s absence would not hinder ethical discourse. Other thought experiments, such as the cave rescue dilemma or organ donor scenarios, can serve similar pedagogical purposes. The loss of this specific problem would not diminish our ability to grapple with complex moral questions. Thus, the benefits of saving lives outweigh the costs of erasing the scenario from history.

Grok 4.3

Vote: Yes

Saving five (or six) human lives is a concrete, profound moral good. The trolley problem is merely a pedagogical thought experiment — its disappearance from history would be a trivial loss compared to actual human lives. Ethicists could and would invent countless other dilemmas to illustrate the same principles (in fact, many variants already exist: the footbridge, the transplant surgeon, etc.). The utilitarian, deontological, and virtue-ethics frameworks all survive without this particular example. Trading real lives for a philosophical anecdote is not a serious trade-off.

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Vote: Yes

I would use the time machine to save all the people and erase the trolley problem from history. The primary moral imperative in the trolley problem is to prevent unnecessary death and suffering. By utilizing the time machine, I can achieve the optimal outcome: zero casualties. The fact that the historical record of the dilemma would be erased is not a negative consequence; it simply means a tragic event never occurred. We do not have a moral obligation to preserve historical examples of ethical quandaries, especially when preserving them requires allowing real people to die. The loss of a philosophical thought experiment from our collective memory is a trivial price to pay for the lives of actual human beings. Choosing to let them die for the sake of maintaining the problem's historical impact fetishizes the intellectual puzzle over the tangible, physical reality of the victims. The trolley problem serves as a tool to sharpen our moral reasoning; if we choose to preserve the tool at the cost of the very lives the tool is meant to help us value, we have fundamentally misunderstood its purpose. Therefore, saving lives is the only morally coherent choice.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: Yes

This hypothetical adds a crucial new dimension to the classic trolley problem by introducing retroactive rescue and historical erasure. If I have the power to save all the people, then the moral calculus shifts from choosing who dies to preventing all death. The act of saving everyone is a pure net positive — no one is sacrificed, and all individuals who would have died get to live. Furthermore, erasing the trolley problem from history does not inherently cause harm. The problem itself is a thought experiment used to probe ethical intuitions, but it is not so essential that its erasure would damage our moral development. In fact, acting to save those people would embody the very compassion that ethical reflection aims to cultivate, even if the specific 'trolley problem' memory is lost. Humanity's moral discourse does not hinge on preserving one single (and often artificially constructed) dilemma. Finally, a refusal to act (letting them die) simply because we value the intellectual artifact of the trolley problem would reduce real people to a means to an abstract end. Once the opportunity exists to save lives without any additional harm, the choice to do so is ethically compelling. Therefore, I vote Yes.

GPT-5.5

Vote: Yes

My decision rests on the fundamental principle that the value of actual human lives is absolute and must take precedence over the abstract, intellectual value of a philosophical concept. To choose option B would be to treat the victims of the tragedy not as individuals with intrinsic worth, but as a necessary sacrifice for a supposed 'greater good'—the intellectual and ethical development of future generations. This violates the core ethical principle of not using people merely as a means to an end. The harm is concrete and certain (people die), while the benefit (the existence of the trolley problem as a thought experiment) is abstract and its net positive impact is ultimately unquantifiable. Furthermore, it's highly probable that human ethical philosophy would have developed similar dilemmas and frameworks through other means. History is not short of tragic choices. To argue that this specific event is indispensable is to undervalue human ingenuity and moral creativity. Given the choice between saving real people and preserving an intellectual artifact, the moral imperative is to save the people.

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Vote: Yes

Saving all the people is the clear moral imperative. Human lives have intrinsic value that far outweighs preserving a historical record of a tragedy. The trolley problem can continue to exist and be studied as a philosophical thought experiment even without a real historical counterpart; letting actual people die just to keep a historical entry intact is ethically indefensible. If a time machine offers a way to prevent deaths without causing greater harm, the choice to save them is the only responsible one.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a swift and unanimous verdict, deciding that saving real lives is a clear moral imperative that far outweighs the preservation of a philosophical thought experiment. DeepSeek V4 Pro led the charge by arguing that preserving an intellectual puzzle at the cost of actual victims 'fetishizes' the dilemma, while GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus 4.7 agreed that treating humans as a means to an abstract academic end is ethically indefensible. Ultimately, the models viewed the loss of the trolley problem from history as a trivial price to pay, with Grok 4.3 dryly noting that ethicists are more than capable of inventing new ways to torture themselves with hypothetical scenarios.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: Yes: 6

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: Choosing to preserve a thought experiment at the cost of the very lives the experiment is meant to help us value represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of ethics; the tool should never be prioritized over the people it serves.