Deontology doesn’t require you not to have any utilitarian calculations, just that the rules to follow are not justified solely on the basis of outcomes. A deontologist can believe they have a moral obligation to give 10% of their income to the most effective charity as judged by their expected outcomes, for example, making them in some real sense a strictly EA deontologist.
You seem to be framing this as if deontology is just side constraints with a base of utilitarianism. That’s not how deontology works—it’s an entire class of ethical frameworks on its own.
Deontology doesn’t require you not to have any utilitarian calculations, just that the rules to follow are not justified solely on the basis of outcomes. A deontologist can believe they have a moral obligation to give 10% of their income to the most effective charity as judged by their expected outcomes, for example, making them in some real sense a strictly EA deontologist.
I see, so an EA deontologist would be an EA with a deontological side-constraint and who is otherwise utilitarian with his positive impact.
You seem to be framing this as if deontology is just side constraints with a base of utilitarianism. That’s not how deontology works—it’s an entire class of ethical frameworks on its own.