Consequentialist vs Deontological ethics

[jsem]

Is there an absolute right or wrong, or is it up to the consequences of those actions if they are morally justifiable or not?

For instance, in libertarianism, there's the non-aggression principle. If you were a libertarian (if you aren't), would you be an adherent of that principle because of the consequences of it or because of the assertion that aggression is always wrong no matter what. I think almost unanimously libertarians support the idea that the consequences of following the principle are all positive, but even if they were negative - should aggression by wrong anyway?

Or a better example. Is it right to steal from someone in order to feed your family if it's your last resort, or is stealing wrong period?

I want your opinions.

[Scheavo]

I think the old response to Kant works just fine: If Nazi's are knocking on your door asking if there's any Jews inside, do you lie, or do you not? If deontology is correct, you cant lie, because lying is wrong, non-universal, etc. However, just about everyone is going to agree that in such a situation, lying is the only morally acceptable answer.

I think the "consequential vs. deontological" question is fallacious; it creates a false dichotomy, where it's either ends, or means, when it fact, it's a balancing act of both. Ends neither justify the means, and means neither justify the ends. Deontology, as a general rule of thumb, is perfectly fine; however, as with just about any rule, there are going to be exceptions, and those exceptions are going to be consequential. If your duty requires you to do something which is obviously evil and wrong, then you should forsake your duty.

The question of whether it's right to steal to feed your family ignores the precursor for such a scenario to exist: that you are too poor to feed your family. At the outset of the question, we ignore the already unjust, immoral situation. The more important question I think to ask in that situation, is, what would you do if you had no other means to feed your family? You'd steal, and you know you would. The act of stealing isn't what should be in question, but the situation of being so poor you can't feed your family. Reminds me a little of, "let he who is without sin throw the first stone," as well as a weird modification of the golden rule.