Consequentialism in Jewish Theology

 This was the question discussed in the comment section of my previous post "Problems with Deontology", namely what is the normative theory in Judaism.

It seems that Deontology is probably the moral outlook of the Tanach, it is more concerned with doing certain actions, following Hashem's will, than it is with the consequences of those actions. This is generally the theistic position.

In fact there are many events in the Tanach that present scenarios just like this. The Adam and Chavah incident, the Akeidah, the judgement against Moshe hitting the rock, the judgements of King Saul for performing a sacrifice without Shmuel, the list goes on and on. It seems to be a clear argument throughout most of the Tanach, especially Iyov (Job). Although not all of it, some parts could be viewed as consequentialist, but I think the main point the Tanach is tying to get across is, you must follow G-d's laws, even if you think doing otherwise will result in better consequences.

Although I think ultimately Jews and most theists are consequentialists. The idea of deontology, to me, doesn't play out all that well. Deontology states that we should do good, because it is good. But what makes it good?

If something being good is divorced from all consequences and the consequences do not mattter with regards to morality, then would you do something "good" even if it resulted in the suffering of all humanity, including yourself? If doing what is "good" resulted in G-d causing endless suffering to people (not something I think anyone believes, I know) then  would you still do it? I don't think anyone would.

I think that ultimately people follow Hashem's laws not for their own sake, but because following Hashem's laws will cause the most amount of good in this world (bringing Moshiach, no more suffering or war, etc). While I think you can argue that G-d's laws are all totally moral, in terms of a consequential view I would understand that to mean that they bring about the best consequences for everyone and thus are moral. It is totally beyond me to imagine an action being moral, regardless of the consequences.

If morality is rooted in the Golden Rule and the rest is commentary as Rabbi Hillel said, then it stands to reason that morality is based in our empathy for others. When we have empathy for others then acting in ways to benefit those we have empathy for is what is moral, doing the opposite is immoral.

There may be actions that if done will always cause benefit with no suffering to anyone and other actions that may always cause suffering  with no benefit to others and in this sense those actions would be immoral. However, most actions are relative to the context of the situation.

Lying for instance. Sometimes lying will hurt someone, sometimes it will help. If the situation is such that lying will save lives, I have been told that Halachah commands us to lie.

So is Jewish theology really not concerned with the consequences of ones actions? Should one do a mitzvah regardless of the consequences, or do the consequences of an action determine whether or not something is a mitzvah?