Criticism of Consequentialism: The deontological criticism of consequentialism would suggest that the very fact that two identical acts can be highly ethical or highly unethical in different circumstances renders consequentialism purely subjective and dependent on opinion instead of objective principles. In that view, the deontological ethical approach may produce unintended negative results on occasion, but at least deontological ethics are predictable and consistent; furthermore, deontological values lead to the better choice of conduct often enough to justify any specific instances where practical injustices could result from adherence to rules.

Adhering to rules is the surest way of ensuring ethical human conduct notwithstanding that isolated societies may establish rules that could be defined objectively as unethical. One of the best examples of the impracticality of consequentialism is the general law of false arrest in most American states. A citizen arrested unlawfully by a duly authorized law enforcement officer may not flee from or legally resist that arrest with physical force, despite being entirely innocent of any criminal charges justifying that arrest.

Consequentialism would allow the innocent individual to resist to flee, because the consequences of arrest and penal confinement in that circumstance would be unjust.

Deontology recognizes the importance of requiring respect for the authority of authorized agents of the state, even in proceeding error, and would require the individual wrongfully arrested to submit to the arrest and pursue legally recognized recourses after the fact.

Consequentialist Response:

The consequentialist would respond that ethical analysis would simply recognize and incorporate the potential consequences of allowing citizens to exercise independent belief in determining the validity or invalidity of a rule (or, in the specific example, the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an arrest). Since the consequences of permitting flight from or overt resistance to authority in any circumstance would undermine the process of administering law in society and ensuring maximum public safety, the...

In fact, it is deontology rather than consequentialism that produces absurd results: Kant, for example, argued that the general ethical principle that truth is always preferable to deception would require a truthful response to a murderer who demanded to know the whereabouts of his intended victim.
Kant would maintain that no consequence ever justifies deception. Whereas deontology relies blindly on the law of averages (in the assumption that adherence to rules en masse is beneficial to society) and utterly discounts even the worst conceivable results of honesty in specific circumstances, consequentialism is in intellectually flexible enough perspective to recognize both the general merit of honesty over dishonestly and the exceptional circumstances that justify suspension of that general rule (Beauchamp, (Bowie, & Arnold, 2009).

Resolution:

The obligation to provide truthful information to the murderer suffices to establish the insufficiency of the deontological approach to ethics in human conduct. Whereas deontology is the equivalent of a black and white image, consequentialism is more equivalent to a kaleidoscope in which every color in the spectrum is represented, with each color and combination of color contributing to the final image. The deontological perspective is only useful to the extent the consequences of its application happen to produce positive results. Both lying and violating other established general rules is ethically justified in circumstances that meet objective criteria characterizing the consequences. Ultimately, consequences always define human morality.