Better than deontology, that's for sure.
I don't think that there's much to be learned from treating the two as fundamentally opposed theories, because I'm not convinced that utilitarianism isn't deontological. This is part of what makes utilitarianism downright creepy.
Well, that gets into the distinction between act and rule utilitarianism. Perhaps "consequentialist" would be a better word.
I'm far from a pure utilitarian– a heavy dose of virtue ethics seems necessary to ward off the reductio ad absurdums that any dogmatic approach inevitably fosters, and help bridge the gaps in our knowledge that will never go away– but IMO if ethics is to be more than a tool for ego-stroking or social control, some concern for empiricism and results and, well, consequences, is vital.
I don't think deontology needs to entail complete disregard of consequences. I mean, that'd be a bit silly.
And I believe rule utilitarianism has gone out of fashion. I do like virtue ethics a bit though.
Poll
