For those readers who never took Philosophy, here's a TL;DR

Consequentialism: an act is good if it could be expected to have a good outcome. "Good" being your preferred ultimate end, often utility, but equality or souls saved are possibilities.

Deontology: an act is good if it is in accordance with your duties and other peoples' rights.

Virtue ethics: an act is good if it demonstrates virtue, or increases the virtue in the world.

Each Ethical tradition is consistent, logical and defensible from its own frame of reference.

As a practical guide to action, I feel that consequentialism is almost perfectly useless. Decision-makers' information is never as good as we think it is ("confirmation bias"), decision-makers are often limited by time and strong emotion, and humans are ludicrously prone to creative excuses - https://zero.sci-hub.se/5923/08375223c5d58fbba2606b668c8a6f74/snyder1988.pdf?download=true

You can justify almost anything as a Consequentialist. Covering up a paedophile priest? Maximises church attendance and souls saved, you know. Bombing a paediatrics ward? (I don't actually know how you excuse that, but the New York Times does.)

I preferred deontology, specifically Kant. You can't always steer a course of action that fulfils your duties and respects other persons rights, but you can try, and when you can't you can make a choice and own it.

We skimped terribly on Virtue Ethics, but I've started reading Epictetus' Enchiridion, and I'm liking it. That old pagan may make another convert yet...