[Tycho]

It is the characterisation of moral systems as either 'deontological' or 'teleological' which I find invalid, thus undermining the usefulness of this here debate.

In the articles terms, you could be moral according to the category of your actions, or according to the consequences of your actions. The first one ignores reality ('whatever happens, don't lie'), and the second one negates judgement ('the right action depends on the consequences, and the consequences of the consequences, and the consequences of... ad infinitum' an endless, useless subjectivism). They can be sidestepped by applying judgement according to reality and a measurable standard of value, eg. self-interest. You could call this contextual or objective morality.

[MichaelSalib]

Consequentialism encompasses all value systems that incorporate consequences to any degree at all. So your "applying judgement according to reality and a measurable standard of value" system is actually consequentialist.