Rules or results: how should we decide what is right?

Some people judge actions by their consequences: the right choice is the one that produces the best outcome. Others hold that some things are wrong whatever the outcome, such as lying, breaking a promise or using a person merely as a means. Consequentialism and deontological ethics are the best-known names for these two families of views, and philosophers have debated them for a long time.

Michael Sandel's Harvard lecture "The Moral Side of Murder", the first episode of his Justice series, introduces the question through dilemmas such as the well-known trolley problem, in which you must choose between letting several people die and acting in a way that causes one death.

We are asking readers to say where they stand and why. A good answer would describe a real decision, not only a thought experiment, explain whether you relied more on rules or on results, say where that approach gave an answer you found uncomfortable, and tell us what would change your mind.

Honest examples of being torn are welcome.