Every single moral system leads to repugnant conclusions if you push it just right. So okay, you don't like utilitarianism. Let's try deontology for size. Deon

Every single moral system leads to repugnant conclusions if you push it just right. So okay, you don't like utilitarianism. Let's try deontology for size. Deontology works effectively to following a set of rules and duties, consequences be damned. So if our rules say you don't steal, then you don't. Don't murder. Etc. But the snag is that since you don't care about the consequences, any consequences, of any size are irrelevant. So for instance, if contraception is deemed bad, then no amount of negative consequences has any relevance. Families are brought down to crushing poverty, orphanages are overflowing, starving children are wandering on the streets? Absolutely not a reason to change that rule. Also, where utilitarianism can make iffy tradeoffs (eg, this particular person would be better dead because we'd benefit from it), there's usually some practical limit to that. If you ever can do that under deontology you can do it on an unlimited scale. If you ever work out that "those people" aren't really people legally speaking and you can just kill one of them, then you can kill them all you want, any time you want, on any scale you want. Point being, most any system followed indiscriminately has problems because people are people and will look for loopholes and ways to exploit any rules to benefit.