I'm intuitively very much a consequentialist, and I have difficulty understanding intuitively how deontology could possibly be correct. Doesn't the correctness of an act ultimately boil down to what effects it has? Stabbing a person seems wrong because that would have the consequence of causing harm to someone else. If stabbing people didn't hurt them (or inconvenience them in any way, I suppose), it doesn't seem like it would be wrong at all. How can a rule or act be considered morally meaningful except in terms of the consequences it has on others?