Methodology
Each of the 40 scenarios has a mapped-out position for all nine frameworks — what a committed utilitarian, a strict Kantian, and so on would actually say about that case. Your rating is compared against all nine at once; the closer you land to a framework's position, the higher its match score.
For instance, a utilitarian believes the organ transplant killing one to save five is the right action, since it produces the greatest net benefit — while rule utilitarians, Kantians, and libertarians all object, each for a different reason: rule utilitarians worry about what happens if this became a general practice, Kantians object to using a person merely as a means, and libertarians see it as a straightforward violation of the one person's right not to be killed. If your answer lands closest to "strongly wrong," you'll match more closely with those three; if it lands closest to "strongly right," you'll match more closely with utilitarianism.
Many scenarios come in matched pairs that hold every variable constant except one — the same trolley dilemma with a switch versus direct physical force, the bombing of civilians as an unintended side effect versus a means to achieve an end. A single answer can be explained by coincidence, but a consistent pattern across a pair — where you stay the same, or where you flip — is what actually reveals which variable your judgment is tracking.
Not every framework has a position on every scenario. Care ethics, for example, is built around real, particular relationships, so it has little to say about abstract policy questions. Where a framework has no determinate position, that scenario simply doesn't count toward its score.
This quiz is a measure of revealed moral reasoning, but it is not a measure of which theory is correct, nor a diagnosis of your character.