Great question—and you're absolutely right that the tension shows up vividly in thought experiments like the trolley problem. At their core: deontology judges actions based on adherence to moral rules or duties (e.g., 'Don’t lie,' 'Don’t kill') regardless of outcomes—so flipping the switch to divert the trolley *might* be wrong because it treats a person as a means to an end (Kant’s principle). Consequentialism, by contrast, evaluates actions solely by their outcomes—so diverting the trolley is justified if it saves five lives at the cost of one, since net well-being increases (as in utilitarianism). The real-world divergence isn’t just theoretical: a deontologist might refuse to torture a suspect even if it could prevent a bombing; a consequentialist would weigh probabilities, harms, and benefits before deciding. Neither view denies that consequences or intentions matter—it’s about *what ultimately makes an action morally right*. Many contemporary ethicists blend insights from both (e.g., rule-consequentialism or Ross’s pluralistic deontology), recognizing that moral reasoning often needs both principled boundaries *and* situational sensitivity.