Consequentialism is superior to deontological ethics in determining morality.

So firstly, I did not intend for my counter argument to be viewed as attacks. I thought it was a gesture of respect to attend closely to another's argument. As I for my failure to defend (or submit something to defend), I am arguing against your claim. My primary goal is not to defend, but rather to refute the assertions you put forward. Defending's your bit , well, for this round anyway :-) I also must disagree with your claiming that I have not put forward any points of my own. I have aimed to demonstrate that the two terms/concepts are equal in worth (which is little): 1. because moral judgments are derived from real-world consequences as you have already said (and I agreed). 2. Because both terms distort/skew the way we actually understand and execute and evaluate purposeful action & 3: because even if i saw them as valid means of judging morality, they both have huge vulnerabilities. I will try to illustrate thes points as best I can: Moral judgments, as you said, and I agreed are the result of consequences, so correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't the actual process be, intent/desired outcome -> action -> consequence/outcome? We might even arrive at an action because the consequences/outcomes fulfill our intent/desired outcome Which would be, intent/desired outcome -> consequences <-appropriate action. Either way, our minds have a tacit understanding of the fluid link between these three terms, and we apprehend them in conjunction, not one at a time, or one without the other This brings me to point 2. They cannot be spliced because it voids the meaning of the associated terms; i.e., they are interdependent. You cannot have an intent without perceiving the consequences of an intent. Actions are defined as the creation of a consequence... Just because one precedes/follows the other doesn't mean they can stand alone. Have you noticed that actions are often defined by the consequences they create i.e., to lie means to deceive, and the consequence of a lie is deception. To kill means to caused the death of someone/something, and the consequence of kill is death! But consequentialism proports to ignore the action, and instead look to the result it causes...but if we are talking about morals...we must be talking exclusively about purposeful action, as there is no virtue in doing something you did not intend, and you can't have a consequence without adjoining the intended action... Deontological ethics claims to only see the action in and of itself... But we cannot apprehend actions as discrete from consequences or intentions. In purposeful actions, the term meanings are inherent in (inextricably bound to) the others. Now to point 3. Consequentialism states that if the consequence is good then the action is good. But what if the intent was good and resulted in an unforeseen consequences... Is the action now bad... So using your example, if the children had not been saved would the parent's lie (action) then be deemed wrong? It just doesn't make sense. Also you must be aware that statements such as YOUR WORDS "...when there is a moral outcome, anything can be done to reach it", is an advocation for fanatics and fundamentalists. This is a huge vulnerability on the part of consequentialism! You make deontological ethics out to be short sighted but, this is extremism at its core. Deontological ethics is equally frail, because it sees actions/act only, which is not only improbable but skews the contructive prossess of morality, as mentioned above. This is why I keep reiterating that they're hardly distinguishable as they are equally flawed and unrealistic I hope i have represented your views accurately, if not, I can only apologize, as this is what I understood by your terms...but at any rate, I hope I have at least made my point clearer...so you won't feel that I'm just attacking... Thanks for reviewing...