[spodek]

> Extreme moral dilemmas are supposed to touch the very core of our moral being. So why the inconsistency?

This question doesn't seem scientific.

I would say, "We didn't predict this outcome, what's wrong with our theory?"

If you're observing something in nature, in this case people, calling nature inconsistent doesn't make sense. Nature is consistent. Your theory has problems if it calls nature inconsistent.

[icebraining]

I wouldn't say they're calling nature inconsistent. They're calling the supposition inconsistent. Which is more or less the same as saying the theory is inconsistent.