This gave me a headache, and here's why: it's assuming a dichotomy where none may exist. For instance, I may believe that we should be as consistent as possibl

This gave me a headache, and here's why: it's assuming a dichotomy where none may exist. For instance, I may believe that we should be as consistent as possible in our moral views because society functions better that way. This is a utilitarian argument, but it has deontological implications. Likewise I may feel that my absolute morals requires me always to sacrifice one person for the many. This is a moralistic position which looks like harsh determinism. Or -- as implied here -- we can just make it up as we go along, mixing and matching. This study did nothing to disentangle these terms, choosing instead to define them in such broad and contrasting ways as to create a question where none (or a much deeper one) exists. In short, you should study what you can clearly separate and identify. To do otherwise is to waste your time. And ours.