You can use arrow keys to navigate in the map.
You can judge an ethic only on its outcomes. Deontologist ethics are based on simple principle that protect us from bad outcome in most case. Utilitarian ethics are a bit more sophisticated and aim at giving the best outcome possible "in average".
Really thinking about others, without thinking of you as a particular agent, naturally lead to consequentialism.
ie: complete absence of egoism lead to consequentialism.
Utilitarian ethics could justify morally impermissible things like theft, violence, and rape.
Deontological ethical judgements are consistent. If, for example, violence against a nonviolent person is morally unjustifiable in one case, then it is morally justifiable in all cases.
Utilitarianism could lead to absurd and subjectively unjust consequences. If, for example, I am more skilled in managing money then you are, utilitarianism can be used to justify that I expropriate the content of your wallet or bank account.
A deontological ethics(DE) could lead to bad consequences even for itself.
If for a particular DE, doing A is good, and doing B or C is equivalently bad.
You are in a situation where everyone do B.
Doing A or B change nothing to that.
But doing C make everyone do A.
You should still do A…
Deonlogical ethics will still prescribe something even in situations where this prescription lead to hell.
It doesn’t adapt to the situation.
Utility cannot be measured adequately. A utilitarian cannot say with absolute certainty that taxation (expropriating a person's (usually) money for the benefit of government agents) is justifiable whereas a deontologist can say with absolute certainty that property is absolute and theft is immoral.