The Internet Book Database of Fiction

These are overly simplistic, but amusing none the less.

http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/

My results:

Simplistic is right , seemed more like an aptitude test.

I did only the "Fat Man." I was 100% morally consistent. The trouble is that I wanted to refuse the choices when the fat man was known to be a saboteur. I didn't think either choice was morally appropriate. I could discuss why, but that isn't the point here. As Brad says, the quiz is somewhat simplistic. Morality is not truly a matter of simple this/that choices. People are complex and the moral issues that surround them are also complex. Reducing the choices to dichotomies complicates the matter, rather than simplifying it.

Sue

On the "Fat Man" I got the result 100% consistent. Though I found myself inconsistent for turning the train but not pushing the innocent Fat Man. By turning the train I deliberately killed a person who would have lived otherwise, in order to save five. Pushing the innocent Fat Man would do exactly the same. Still the nuance in the situation made me take different attitudes, and I still have trouble to justify it. Somehow I rationalize by thinking that the single person tied on the track was already involved into that by a third party, the very same party that jeopardized the life of the five others. And he did not know where the train was headed. For all he knew the "aiguillage" was already in a position that the train would take his track rather than the other one. The innocent Fat Man was an "innocent bystander", not involved in it at all. I could not do anything to him.
The difference is extremely subtle.
Ad for the guitly Fat Man, since I am in favor of the death penalty for horrendeous crimes, I would have had no compuction to push him on the tracks even if it would not have saved the lives of the people already on the tracks, just on the rationale that if he did it once he could he do it again, and killing him could possibly save the lives of more innocents he might decide to kill later, if there was no other way to prevent it by taking him to justice (in the case where the only way I could keep him from escaping would be to push him down, now or never). So with that in mind I would certainly push him even if there was only one person on the track, and even with the knowledge that the probability of his body being enough to stop the train was much less than 100%. Any small chance to save his victim was worth his death.
As for torture, I was also consistent: I do not think that torture is always morally wrong. I do believe it is wrong to torture a potentially innocent person to obtain a confession of guilt. Anyway, what is the value of such a confession?
But if the guilt is proven, and the torture has for aim to save a life, then it is criminal not to torture. Forget a nuclear device and millions of lives at risk. A man has kidnapped a kid (not my kid, just any kid, or even any adult, for that purpose). The kidnapping has been filmed by a surveillance camera, the kidnapper recognized, blood or belongings or scraps of clothing of the victim found in his car or his house, etc. etc., everything is clear. Only problem: he had had time to lock up the victim somewhere before being caught. By the time all possible places are explored, the victim will be dead of hunger and thirst.
I say one must torture him until he says where the victim is hidden. And if he gives a wrong indication, torture him again, and again, and again. Here one can check the value of the confession: when the victim is actually found. As long as there is hope that the victim is alive (and if just locked someplace, with air to breathe, not buried, one can live without food or even water for days), I claim that not torturing the kidnapper is tantamount to manslaughter on the person of the victim. Because searching without clues in too large an area could take too many days.
By the way, even if he claims the victim is already dead, that won't stop me from torturing him until he gives a proof of the victim's death (just revealing the location of some nonessential body parts as hands or feet won't be enough: the victim might still be alive and horribly suffering, with wounds bandaged but in danger of bleeding to death if the search takes too long).