Hmph, deontology vs consequentialism, I think it’s fair to say this debate is over. It’s like having a debate over salt and sugar, blondes and brunettes, there will always be fans of one and fans of the other. The same goes for rationalism vs empiricism, idealism vs materialism, liberty vs authority, etc. To say one is always good and the other always bad, is foolish, immature, and insane even, I think. Instead, we should be arguing over when to apply one and when to apply the other, make use of them both, depending on the circumstance. To say deontology is always good and consequentialism is always bad, is tantamount to cutting off your left hand in favour of your right hand. Human beings are a symmetrical beast, so naturally it should come as no surprise there’s two mutually oppossed but complementary ways of viewing the world. In order to keep this car on the road, we must occasionally move to the right and occasionally move to the left.
I’m answering your op, LT, because, now that I’ve recovered from my fear brought on by your rants, I find that I like you. 
Does anyone truly follow just one philosophy? I don’t think I do, which often makes it difficult to ‘explain’ my philosophy to the people who always base theirs on the writings of one philosopher or another. Shoot, half the time I don’t even understand the language they use–so I must constantly go to Wiki or, better yet, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Welcome back. And, despite what you said in one of your pms to me, I think you’re back on your meds. So there! 
PS, don’t cut off your right hand. If you do, you won’t be able to eat at the communal table–whether or not you use a hand sanitizer. 
To say ‘one should use deontogy’ is likely subsuming it in consequentialism. The whole point of deontological ethics is their absoluteness.
Or maybe there is some way around this?
But imagine telling someone when they should follow the ten commandments and when they can ignore them.
Well, I suppose an action could still be wrong, in a deontological or intrinsic sense, but worth executing due to the overwhelming benefits, in a consequential or extrinsic sense. Lying may be inherently wrong, but worth it if the benefits (classic example-- lying to a serial killer) are overwhelming. Even if no one gets hurt, it would be wrong to lie, but worth it in certain situations. In other words, we have to strike a balance between right/wrong and good/bad. Sometimes the wrong outweighs the good, sometimes the good outweighs the wrong. As for the ten commandments, well, that’s not philosophy, that’s religion, so nevermind that.
Sauwelios
Well, what do you think, do you think the chasm between deontology (actions/means determine rightness/wrongness) and consequentialism (results/ends determine rightness/wrongness) can be traversed? ? I think so. An action can still be wrong or regrettable but worth executing for some important purpose, which is why people can feel guilty whilst still choosing to transgress some commandment, natural law, etc. Perhaps other seemingly antagonistic doctrines can be reconciled.
Uhhh, thanks
I think deontology can be a stepping stone to a more consequentialist approach. We all start off lacking the experience the estimate the consequences of certain actions. As we grow up we can get better at this, and consequentialism can become more important.
My synthesis, if you can call that, is then that deontology is good where consequentialism fails. And where consequentialisme fails will depend for a good part on the specific person ofcourse.
As far as the 10, well that’s what deontology is. Axiomatic moral beliefs. You can’t just shove that over into religion. Unless you want to shove deontology over into religion. Most people are deontologists on some issues, even atheists.
I would say that deontologists, if they can articulate it, would say that consequentialists base their analyses on hubris. The hubris that they know and can track the consequences. And I see this all the time, where people say why doing this or that is the right decision and make an extremely minimal list of the consequences. This includes very smart people.