The most important lesson that I learned from studying the difference between the consequentialist and deontological moralities is that these viewpoints actually complement each other. While on the surface, it may seem that they are mutually exclusive, it is possible to apply them to different situations based on the assessment of circumstances. No single rule in life is universal, neither are moral frameworks that provide guidance to decision-making.
It is important to note that both morale theories emerged as a response to specific circumstances. Sometimes, actions with a noble intent can lead to negative consequences. For instance, when visiting an impoverished region, UN observers may choose to share water and food with one starving person. Such a decision is guided by deontological morality, yet it has a possible implication: other starving people may become express envy and inflict violence on that individual.
The consequentialist theory would argue that food and water should not be shared for the fear of later disturbances. After all, if other impoverished people punish the person who was given supplies, the nobility of such an action would be compromised. Therefore, counterintuitively, the most moral choice is to walk away and address the problem by raising public awareness of the issues of poverty and water deprivation.
My main takeaway is that it is important to consider the context. The situation mentioned above clearly favors adopting the consequentialist moral theory. However, if a person requires help or immediate medical assistance, the nobility of intentions should be prioritized over consequences. The overall rule that I developed for my future life is that deontological morality is more appropriate in solving urgent and local problems, while far-reaching decisions on a wider scale should be addressed with the consequentialist moral theory.