Pluralist vs Conventional utilitarians

pluralists believe that how the Good is distributed among

persons
conventional utilitarians merely add or average each person's
share of the Good to achieve the Good's maximization.
There seems to be no space for the consequentialist in which to
show partiality i.e. ones own family, friends etc.
Consequentialism is also criticized for what it seemingly permits. It
seemingly demands (and thus, of course, permits) that in certain
circumstances innocents be killed, beaten, lied to, or deprived of
material goods to produce greater benefits for others.

Deontology:
In contrast to consequentialist theories, deontological theories judge
the morality of choices by criteria different from the states of affairs
those choices bring about.
In deontology, the Right is said to have priority over the Good.
Certain actions can be right even though not maximizing of good
consequences, for the rightness of such actions consists in their
instantiating certain norms (here, of permission and not of
obligation).
Such actions are permitted, not just in the weak sense that there is
no obligation not to do them, but also in the strong sense that one is
permitted to do them even though they are productive of less good
consequences than their alternatives (Moore 2008). Such strongly
permitted actions include actions one is obligated to do, but
(importantly) also included are actions one is not obligated to do.
Duty-based ethics teaches that some acts are right or wrong
because of the sorts of things they are, and people have a duty to
act accordingly, regardless of the good or bad consequences that
may be produced.
So, for example, the philosopher Kant thought that it would be
wrong to tell a lie in order to save a friend from a murderer .
Duty Based ethics:
Certainty:
1. Conseq: Future is unpredictable.

2. Duty-based ethics don't suffer from this problem because they are
concerned with the action itself

Agent-centred vs Victim-cantered (or patient-centred) theories