Deontologist ethics are preferable to utilitarian ethics
but
score: 2
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".
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.
This is also true in utilitarian calculations: if the same conditions hold, the calculation is the same and the morally permissible/impermissible outcome is the same.
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.
If utilitarian calculations justify expropriation, then by definition the expropriation is justified. If that conflicts with deontological considerations, then the morality of the action is in question.
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.
The deontologist can be wrong about the premise that "property is absolute", so all rules derived from it are likewise wrong. The deontologist suffers from uncertainty about axioms, and 20th c. results in logic show that axiomatic systems are necessarily incomplete or inconsistent.
m2
