Certainly. Deontological ethics, rooted in thinkers like Immanuel Kant, emphasizes duty and adherence to moral rules (e.g., “Do not lie”) regardless of consequences. While this provides clarity and universality, its rigidity can lead to morally troubling outcomes. For instance:

1. The Problem of Absolutes: If truth-telling is an absolute duty, one might feel compelled to disclose harmful truths (e.g., revealing a hiding place to a murderer), even when lying could save lives. This prioritizes rule-following over preventing suffering, which many find counterintuitive.

2. Lack of Flexibility: Real-world situations often involve competing moral considerations. Deontological ethics struggles to weigh these complexities, as it treats rules as inviolable. For example, in a trolley scenario, a deontologist might refuse to divert the trolley to save five lives, viewing the act of intervention as morally impermissible, even if the outcome is worse.

3. Moral Blindness to Consequences: By ignoring outcomes, deontology can justify actions that seem morally indefensible. For instance, returning a borrowed weapon to a homicidal person might align with a duty to keep promises, but it disregards the harm caused by that action.

4. Conflict of Duties: When duties clash (e.g., telling the truth vs. protecting someone), deontology offers no clear resolution, leaving moral agents in a bind. This undermines its practical applicability.

In contrast, consequentialist approaches (like utilitarianism) prioritize outcomes, allowing for more flexibility and context-sensitive decision-making. Critics argue that deontology’s rigidity risks moral dogmatism, failing to account for the nuanced, often messy realities of ethical dilemmas.