Why Are Deontological Restrictions Problematic? Can the Problem(s) Be Solved?

Deontological restrictions can be explained as any moral principle which says that in certain types of circumstances it is morally impermissible to perform an action that maximises the good.This is directy adverse to consequentialism which according to Bernard Williams can be explained as "consequentialism is the doctrine that the moral value of any action always lies in its consequences." Indeed Deontological restrictions seem to run parallel to the moral compass that we were brought up with "the common sense morality of our culture is substantially deontological in content samuel scheffler". However it doesnt make them anyless paradoxical, according to Samuel Scheffler, who claims "how can the minimization of morally objectionable conduct be morally unacceptable?" Agent Centred Restriction, Rationality and the Virtues_ Samuel Scheffler. Indeed the problem with deontological restrictions is they seem to have a contradictory edge to the theory. This problem which Robert Nozick famously points out to be the "deontological paradox" ***** shows that

The main problem for deontology is to explain just why people are prohibited from certain types of actions even when disobeying the rule is known to bring about much better consequences**. While some philosophers are more inclined to "threshold deontology" where it claims restrictions up to a certain threshold: if the consequences of not violating it would be catastrophic, the violation is permissable. However i am going to use Kants view of deontological restrictions, which says that they are absolute. If the restrictions are absolute then the agent should avoid breaking them at all costs. Deontologists believe that following a set of rules or restrictions will help bring about the most morally efficient result. These rules intrinsically state whether an action is good or bad. Indeed i believe these rules are exactly what we tend to morally agree with, for example it is not about the consequence of the result, but how the result was brought about. Indeed the deontologists would suggest that even if we were to lie to ease the suffering of a person, because according to there restrictions lying is wrong and should not even be used in the first place, even if it brings about greater happiness. Thus you can see the clear objection to consequentialism where the consequence of the action is the most important, even if you have done something morally wrong to get there.

The problem with deontological restrictions is the clear moral dilemma (contradiction) which it can put the agent in by following these rules. Robert Nozick sums up the point eloquently "How can a concern for the non-violation of (a constraint) C lead to refusal to violate C even when this would prevent other more extensive violations of C?" The essence of the problem is that the deontologist will not break the rules that it has been given, even if breaking the rules