interesting. i never thought of deontology as motive and utilitarianism as consequences before.
from what i know, deontology is duty like you quoted and utilitarianism is define as "greater good for grater amount of people".

i would say consequences is more important than motive although hedonic calculus is kind of flawed (there's no real way to measure "good" or happiness".)

i say consequences is more important because of something like "robin hood"? although the act itself is wrong, the consequences is good, it is justifiable. (cant think of any good example at the moment.)

youre right, act does not equal motive.

i took motive as deontological ethics itself.

somehow i feel motive is more important than consequences now, oh how fickle minded can i be.