Had that result!
A Matter of Consistency
The first thing to note is that your consistency score is 100%. This is higher than the average score for this test (where higher is better), which is 78%.
It is often thought to be a good thing if one's moral choices are governed by a small number of consistently applied moral principles. If this is not the case, then there is the worry that moral choices are essentially arbitrary - just a matter of intuition or making it up as you go along. Suppose, for example, you think it is justified to divert the train in the first scenario simply because it is the best way to maximise human happiness, but you do not think this justification applies in the case of the fat man on the bridge. The problem here is that unless you're able to identify morally relevant differences between the two scenarios, then it isn't clear what role the justification plays in the first case. Put simply, it seems that the justification is neither necessary nor sufficient for the moral judgement that it is right to divert the train.
Chose to run over the five people in the first three questions, then chose to torture the fat man once bombs became a thing.
Why are there five people on a train track in a scenario where they won't leave it? Trains are a very obvious danger. They threw their own lives away.
Scored 92% for consistency.
Edit:
The Drowning Child test apparently isn't for me.
Yea, I thought the whole scenario was bull shit. I could care less about one person, five people, throwing the fat guy... I'd torture the fat prick just for fun, could care less what he told me and still let the bomb explode. Where's the philosophical experiment in this shit?