Ethics: Absolutism and Consequentialism

[Original Poster]

Disclaimer: I'm not fond of the vocabulary I opened with, so I'm hoping you'll forgive it and try to see the deeper dichotomy (perhaps trichotomy) I wish to discuss rather than attack my specific terminology. I distinguish ethics between pursuing the most virtuous action and the most beneficial results. The most virtuous action is based on an absolute rule, while the most beneficial consequence depends on the situation you're dealing with. My questions are how do you distinguish ethics and which type of ethical code do you prefer? I understand you may have a different way to classify approaches to ethics than I do, so consider your own preference. For instance I inherently would pick consequentialism because I believe rigid ethical codes are often based upon circular logic. Of course I chose utilitarianism because most examples I received of absolutists were very negative: religious zealots, hate-mongers, etc. The more I look at evolutionary ethics, the more my view changes. And furthermore, the more I look at Detachment and Detachment-based traditions, the more my view changes. I am at the point where I regard absolutism not to necessarily be based on any sort of objective right and wrong. It seems to be based on statistical advantage. I obviously can't explain the statistical advantage behind every single virtue or principle, but the basic virtues all appear to support a healthier civilization, statistically speaking. This means to be an absolutist, you do not need to think you're actually right, you can be perfectly aware you're gambling and the consequences may not reward your rules. But following thoroughly tested rules, methods and traditions puts you in statistical advantage, increasing your chances of success above 50%, figuratively speaking. So someone acting out of virtue would not play Roulette because the odds are against them, and therefore it does not support right action. They may win once but statistically speaking they're making a bad choice. This is a hypothetical example of how I see absolutist ethics from an evolutionary viewpoint, obviously absolutism is still susceptible to backwards rationalization, just not as much as consequentialism. My personal stance on right behavior is that choosing consequentialism itself means you are failing as a consequentialist, because you are regarding proper behavior rather than greater outcome. In general I feel like people tend to think absolutists are attempting to negate responsibility of their actions, taking refuge in the fact that they were following their duty, rules, orders, etc. I disagree with this, I think they are taking complete responsibility of their actions, just not the outcome. The outcome is part of nature and inherently out of our control, anyways, so there's no reason to take responsibility, so long as you're willing to learn and edit your behavior. I don't see anything wrong with taking refuge in right action rather than getting hung up on the results, after all the action is the only thing we control. But this is as far as I tread into absolutism, in reality I seek the action that my perception of the situation leads me to believe will generate the best possible result. After I discover this action, I perform it without regard over what the result actually is. After all nothing is ever 100% as you expect it to be.