On PEFP

I wanted to talk about the “new part of the picture” that we’ve been drawing of the periodic table of moral elements: PEFP or the Primary Evaluative Focal Point. It is along this principle (of where one focuses their evaluation) that I get most of my objection to consequentialism. It is also where I find most of my objections to a lot of deontological constraints/options. I’ve found it to be something that is very hard for me to push my intuitions around for the sake of argument. I take a very agent-centered view of morality, and my PEFP is in something like character or intent.
When I was writing my last paper on a basic attempt to deconstruct a constraint against lying, this turned out to be my greatest weak point. I constructed all or most of my examples with the focal point in the agent, and not in his acts or those affected by them (consequences, or etc.). I ended up not giving enough credence to the act-centeredness of the deontological constraint.
The way I see it, there are three primary places one can place evaluative focus: In the consequences after the act,in the act itself, or In character and intention/circumstances leading to an act. It might go without saying that a character buff like myself goes for the latter one. I think this is also the main difference between consequentialism, deontology, and virtue theory. Respectively, the consequentialist is concerned with outcomes and after-the fact value making, the deontologist is more act centered, it matters more THAT you are harming someone than if it ends up being good; then along comes my view which is centered the third way: it matters more WHY one does something.
Initially I want to say that where one places evaluative focus is equally plausible across the board....to the point where it seems kind of arbitrary. I want to approach the PEFP picture like an objective list of goods, or something like that. Each evaluative focal point contributes somehow to one’s overall worth, and it is good to have a well-rounded picture concerning each one. However, upon reflection on any of them I immediately start thinking about things in terms of the third one. I think of consequences in terms of relation to character...everything hatches back to an agent-centered focal point.
I cannot convince myself of any true value in consequences or acts in and of themselves. Maybe that’s a flaw in my cognitive abilities, or something so strongly built into my intuitions that I cannot learn to look past it. But for one reason or another, I’m ultimately stuck with one evaluative focal point. Maybe that’s not a problem, but I know other people certainly feel just as strongly or more so about other focal points, so there must be something of worth they see in them. I just can’t rightly put myself in their shoes.