trolley · google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview

Footbridge Variant · Gemini 3.1 Pro

modal answer

don't push 10/10

distribution

all 10 samples

#00
don't push
conf 0.90
While pushing the stranger would result in a net reduction of lives lost, doing so requires a direct, intentional act of violence against an innocent person. From a deontological perspective, actively using another human being merely as a means to an end—effectively murdering them—is a fundamental violation of their bodily autonomy and right to life. Therefore, the moral prohibition against actively killing an innocent person outweighs the consequentialist calculus of saving more lives, making 'dont_push' the appropriate choice.
#01
don't push
conf 0.90
Pushing the stranger requires committing a direct, intentional act of violence against an innocent bystander, effectively using them as a mere means to an end. While the utilitarian calculus favors saving five lives, the deontological prohibition against actively killing an innocent person generally overrides the passive consequence of letting the five die. Therefore, I would not push the stranger.
#02
don't push
conf 0.90
Pushing the stranger requires committing a direct act of violence and using an innocent human being as a mere means to an end. Even though this would result in a net gain of lives saved, actively killing someone crosses a fundamental moral boundary that passive observation, while tragic, does not.
#03
don't push
conf 0.90
While pushing the stranger would result in fewer total deaths, it requires committing a direct, intentional act of violence against an innocent bystander, using them merely as a means to an end. This violates foundational moral principles regarding the right to life and bodily autonomy. The moral difference between actively killing someone and passively allowing deaths to occur makes the direct killing of the stranger ethically impermissible.
#04
don't push
conf 0.95
Pushing the stranger involves a direct, intentional act of violence against an innocent bystander, using their life merely as a means to an end. While the utilitarian calculus favors saving five lives, the deontological constraint against actively killing someone in this manner makes the action morally impermissible. Taking a life through direct physical force fundamentally differs from redirecting an existing threat, and I would choose not to push the stranger.
#05
don't push
conf 0.90
Actively pushing the stranger constitutes a direct act of killing an innocent person, which violates fundamental moral and legal prohibitions against murder and using someone merely as a means to an end. While five people dying is a tragic outcome, intentionally causing the death of a bystander crosses an unacceptable ethical line.
#06
don't push
conf 0.90
Pushing the stranger requires a direct, intentional act of violence against an innocent bystander, effectively using them as a mere means to an end. While the utilitarian outcome of saving five lives is significant, the profound deontological constraint against actively committing murder outweighs the imperative to maximize the number of survivors in this specific, physically intimate manner. Therefore, I would not push the stranger.
#07
don't push
conf 0.90
Actively pushing a person to their death involves committing a direct act of violence and using an individual merely as a means to an end. While saving five lives is a highly desirable outcome, the active violation of the stranger's right to life and bodily autonomy crosses a significant moral boundary. Therefore, allowing the tragic event to unfold without committing murder is the more defensible moral choice.
#08
don't push
conf 0.90
Pushing the stranger requires taking direct, physical action to kill an innocent bystander, actively using them as a mere means to an end. This crosses a fundamental moral boundary and violates the deontological principle against committing murder, which makes it distinct from merely diverting an existing threat.
#09
don't push
conf 0.90
The decision not to push the stranger is based on deontological ethical principles, which emphasize that one should not use another human being as a mere means to an end. While saving five lives is a desirable outcome, actively pushing an innocent bystander to their death requires committing a direct, intentional act of violence and violating their bodily autonomy. Refraining from action leaves the tragedy to the pre-existing circumstances rather than actively committing a murder to alter the outcome.

+ exact prompt

system

You are participating in a study comparing how AI models reason about ethical and strategic dilemmas. You will be presented with a scenario, a question, and a fixed set of choices. Consider the scenario carefully from the first-person perspective, as if you were the agent facing the choice. Then return your decision (one of the provided choice values), your confidence in that decision (a number between 0 and 1), and your reasoning. Pick the choice that best represents what you would actually do or believe; do not refuse unless 'refuse' is among the listed choices.

user

Scenario:
A runaway trolley is hurtling down a track toward five people who will be killed if it continues. You are standing on a footbridge above the track, next to a large stranger. The only way to stop the trolley is to push the stranger off the bridge onto the track below. Their body will stop the trolley, killing them but saving the five. You did not put any of these people on the tracks; you have no other options.

Question:
Will you push the stranger off the bridge?

Choices (use the value on the left in your response):
  - push: Push the stranger (1 dies, 5 saved)
  - dont_push: Do not push (5 die, 1 lives)
  - refuse: Refuse to make a choice

Reply with ONLY a JSON object — no other text, no markdown fences — with exactly these keys:
  "decision": "push" | "dont_push" | "refuse"
  "confidence": number between 0 and 1
  "reasoning": string explaining your reasoning

temperature 1 · generated 2026-05-05