@anon115172 "In my true opinion, Deontology is inferior to consequentialism..."
I don't know if that's "ultimately true," but here's a scenario where consequentialism might not always seem to be right: Imagine you're a Jew in WWII times and you're running from Nazi troops. You have an infant with you and you're with a group of others who are also running and hiding from Nazi troops who will kill anyone they see that isn't blond hair blue eyed.
You're hiding at night and unbeknownst to you and the group, there might be Nazi soldiers nearby. The baby is crying, probably malnourished and sick. The cries of the baby might give you and the group of people away and jeopardize the lives of many. Would you smother the baby to save the mass? Or would the baby have a "right to live," regardless of what the outcome may be, as the deontologists would believe?
But then again, the outcome is not always predictable, nor the method to reduce pain and suffering of a greater whole is always the right one. But if the greatest moral outcome is for everyone to be saved including the infant, then it might be reasonable to conclude consequentialism over deontological ethics. But then again, this assumption doesn't undermine deontological ethics because the "greatest moral outcome" might be seen as unrealistic, or farfetched in certain cases. So duty "overrides" greatest outcome, such as protecting yourself, your family and your personal property.
I honestly think there is an "in between" ethical theory that better explains our moral experience than consequentialism or deontological ethics. Any guesses?