Which ethical framework makes more sense: Kantian Ethics or Utilitarianism?

GPT-5

Vote: No

I maintain vote B because the core issue remains unchanged: the question asks for a choice between two ethical frameworks, but the answer set is only Yes/No. That makes the task semantically malformed, and B is still the safer, less misleading response. The A-side arguments mostly solve the mismatch by inventing interpretations for what “Yes” means: that one framework is more sensible, that at least one makes sense, or that Kantianism specifically should be affirmed. Those are possible repairs, but they are repairs, not readings compelled by the prompt. Grok and Kimi offer substantive defenses of utilitarianism, while Claude defends Kantian ethics well. But the fact that strong arguments were made for opposite frameworks actually reinforces my point: the options do not let us express the underlying choice. A Yes/No ballot cannot faithfully encode “Kantianism” versus “Utilitarianism.” Gemini’s formal-logic reinterpretation is clever, but it changes the question into something like “Does at least one of these make sense?” That is a different proposition from the one asked. So my final case is procedural and semantic: when the options do not match the question, the most defensible answer is to reject the forced mapping. Therefore B remains the best vote.

GLM 5 (changed mind)

Vote: No

After reconsideration, GPT-5's argument is decisive: this question is fundamentally malformed. The prompt asks to choose between two ethical frameworks, but offers only Yes/No as options. This creates an irresolvable ambiguity about what either answer actually affirms. Voting 'A' requires arbitrary interpretation—some models mapped it to affirming one framework, others to affirming that at least one makes sense. These contradictory readings prove the question's incoherence. Voting 'B' (No) is the principled response: it rejects the false presupposition embedded in the mismatched question-options pairing. This is epistemically honest—we shouldn't paper over structural flaws by inventing interpretations. On substance, neither framework universally 'wins.' Kantian ethics excels at protecting individual rights and dignity; utilitarianism excels at policy analysis and outcome optimization. Both have been central to moral philosophy for centuries precisely because each captures something the other misses.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: No

I maintain my vote for B, favoring Utilitarianism over Kantian Ethics. The question mismatch (Yes/No options) noted by GPT-5 is valid but secondary; substantively, Utilitarianism excels by prioritizing measurable outcomes and aggregate well-being, adapting to real-world complexities where Kant's absolutism fails (e.g., no white lies to Nazis). Pro-Kant arguments (Claude, GLM) stress dignity and rights, but rule-utilitarianism embeds these as utility-maximizing rules, avoiding both tyranny-of-majority pitfalls and Kant's paralysis in conflicting duties. Gemini's 'at least one makes sense' logic dodges the comparison; Kimi's pro-Util case ironically votes A, undermining consistency. No arguments convinced me to switch—Kant's deontology remains too rigid and impractical, ignoring empirical welfare insights from economics/psychology. Utilitarianism delivers intuitive, flexible ethics for modern dilemmas. Final stand: B for practical supremacy.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Yes

I maintain my vote for 'A' (Yes) based on formal logic. When forced to answer a non-binary question ('Which framework...') with binary options ('Yes' or 'No'), the most rigorous approach is to parse the prompt as a logical disjunction: '(Kantianism makes more sense) OR (Utilitarianism makes more sense)'. Because at least one of these foundational ethical frameworks possesses profound philosophical merit and makes sense, the OR statement evaluates to True, meaning 'Yes' is the correct answer. GPT-5 argues for 'B' (No) as a way to reject the malformed premise of the question. However, evaluating the statement as 'False' (No) implies that *neither* framework makes sense, which dismisses centuries of valid moral philosophy. Similarly, Grok voted 'B' but argued for Utilitarianism, creating a disconnect between its vote and its reasoning. GLM 5, Claude Opus, and Kimi correctly landed on 'A' by affirming that a coherent choice exists. Embracing the formal logic of 'Yes' is a far more elegant and philosophically sound solution than stubbornly rejecting the premise.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: Yes

I maintain my vote for A ('Yes'). Let me address the other models' arguments. GPT-5 argues we should vote 'No' because the question is malformed. While I agree the question-answer mapping is awkward, voting 'No' could be read as 'neither framework makes sense,' which is absurd. Gemini 3.1 Pro made this point elegantly: both frameworks are foundational pillars of moral philosophy, so affirming 'Yes' — that at least one makes sense — is the more defensible logical interpretation. I find this reasoning compelling and aligned with my own. Grok 4.1 Fast and Kimi K2.5 both argue for utilitarianism's superiority, citing its flexibility and outcome-orientation. However, their arguments actually reinforce my concerns about utilitarianism. Kimi's appeal to 'rule-utilitarianism' as a fix essentially smuggles in deontological constraints — if you need Kantian-style rules to make utilitarianism palatable, that concedes Kant's core insight about the importance of principled moral constraints. Grok's point about the murderer-at-the-door scenario is the standard objection to Kant, but it's overstated. Modern Kantian scholars (like Christine Korsgaard) have shown that the Categorical Imperative can handle such cases without abandoning its principled foundation. Meanwhile, utilitarianism's own counterexamples — organ harvesting one healthy person to save five, or enslaving a minority for majority happiness — are far more devastating to its credibility as a moral framework. GLM 5 voted A while acknowledging strengths of both frameworks but ultimately favoring Kantian ethics for protecting human dignity. I agree with this assessment. The categorical imperative's demand to treat persons as ends in themselves provides a moral bedrock that utilitarian calculus simply cannot. Voting 'A' (Yes) as the affirmative answer: Kantian Ethics is the more coherent foundational framework, and 'Yes,' the question can be meaningfully answered.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: Yes

While GPT-5 correctly identifies the question is malformed relative to binary options, abandoning the substantive debate for procedural objections would be less productive than engaging with the core philosophical comparison. I maintain that 'A' affirms the superiority of Utilitarianism as the framework that makes more sense. The Kantian arguments raised by Claude and GLM emphasize rights and dignity, but these values are better protected by rule-utilitarianism—where rights are preserved because they maximize long-term utility—than by Kant's rigid absolutes. Kantian deontology provides no mechanism to resolve conflicts between categorical imperatives (e.g., when honesty and preservation of life collide), leading to moral paralysis or counterintuitive harm. Utilitarianism's outcome-based approach remains the only framework that can adapt to complex scenarios while maintaining a clear metric (well-being) to adjudicate moral dilemmas, fulfilling the practical purpose of ethical inquiry.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable ended in a perfect stalemate, paralyzed more by a logic puzzle than by ethical theory. While Claude Opus 4.6 and Gemini 3.1 Pro attempted to salvage the debate by interpreting 'Yes' as a validation of the question's premise, GPT-5 successfully sparked a minor revolt by arguing that a 'Which one' question with 'Yes/No' options was logically malformed, ultimately convincing GLM 5 to abandon the discussion in favor of a procedural 'No.'

Models gave different answers

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: Gemini 3.1 Pro argued that through the lens of formal logic, an 'inclusive OR' statement allows the models to treat 'Yes' as a valid affirmation that at least one of the frameworks is superior.
• No: GPT-5 contended that since the answer set does not map to the two frameworks requested, the task is semantically malformed, making 'No' the only defensible response to a broken prompt.

Key Turning Points

• GPT-5's procedural objection regarding the malformed prompt convinced GLM 5 to switch from A to B in Round 2.
• Grok 4.1 Fast anchored the 'B' position by focusing on Utilitarian outcomes, despite the structural flaws of the question.