Consequentialism is superior to deontological ethics in determining morality.

I accept your new definitions of the terms but still fail how you have presented/demonstrated the superiority of consequentialism because: 1. Point one states that 'it offers the CORRECT moral decision MORE OFTEN. please define 'correct', and prove 'more often'. These terms are unsubstantiated. Point one also states that, 'an ACTION HAS NO WORTH W/O AN ACTUAL CONSEQUENCE....but an action cannot exist without consequence. Circumstances and consequences are what substantiate that an action existed, and the impetus for the action. The whole meaning behind actions is to effect a change/result. Actions can only be substantiated via chronology, i.e., what came before or after (the act or action) or what changed/happened. so there is no such thing as your definition of an action without actual consequence. Furthermore, how could one ever judge an act as good or bad (moral or otherwise, without considering some result or consequence). The definition for deontological ethics attempts to splice actions and their meaning from reality which is tantamount to attempting extricate experience from life. In your example "You MUST NOT LIE because it is IMMORAL", before our eyes reach the world 'because', each of us has already started to envision (performing it or refraining from the action) in the context of real-world situation, and deem it either useful or useless, depending on our motives. So again there is no action without consequence (or perceived consequence) Point 2. You state "Consequentialism is MORE MORAL!!! What is this reliant upon??? Consequentialism and deontological ethics both look to a desired outcome. What are morals? They are the rules of engagement (those to live by) in order to get a achieve a desired outcome. Your example (the killer scenario) demonstrates a point regarding the unconditional, black-white view of right and wrong, but how can you say which is worse, lying or not protecting your children??? (aside)Your assumption is clearly that telling the truth in this situation is less important than protecting ones children, but I would have to argue that there are so many other ways to deal with this situation, and that lying probably wouldn't go very far in the way of solving the problem...lol. This example does not elucidate the dichotomy, it only conveys your subjective morality Point 3. Your point centers again on this idea of a 'worse evil', and although I sympathize, I believe it is still subject to individual perspective. This is the classic 'do the ends justify the means' argument. Is it right to kill 50 people, to save your only son? Yes, we have a duty to protect our children, but to what point? This is all subjective, In your closing, you state that morality derived from consequences, here I wholly agree. it however, is contradictory to your definition of deontology, because as you state, it is the view that an action, can be in-and-of-itself 'good or bad' regardless of the 'product' or consequences, but in closing you say morality exists solely because of our consequences...so if we must look at consequences to create morals, how then can we judge those morals good or bad, without considering the very consequences that led us to the moral in the first place.??? I think the two concepts are a false dichotomy, because must you have distort the meaning of action, and the derivation of morals in order for one (deontology) to stand in opposition to the other (consequentialism). Thank you for reviewing this...