Tom Guald wants us to imagine a different trolly dilemma but with a different pair of options. Or is that the telephone game?
This image speaks for itself, so I won’t editorialise at the moment, save to mention that I find the scenario to be hilarious. If you like eating cooked lobster, I suppose that the elephant path makes the most sense—and of course, the elephant is already on fire.
What would you do?
Philosophics 
I don’t get it. There must be something going on with objects on the track that I’m missing. Or maybe the whole joke is just that it’s absurd, like these abstract ethical conundrums.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You do see the point. It’s intentionally absurd, which questions the very validity of thought experiments such as this. We frame a dichotomy where we have no ability to offer a third path.
This is the contention I have with so-called aptitude tests: When you are at a party, do you X or Y. In my case, the premise is not likely, and neither option is to be a likely outcome even if I imagine how I might respond.
LikeLike