"Deontological ethical systems are better at moral problem solving than Teleological ethical systems" Do you agree?

To answer this question we must first define what is meant by 'better'.  Better I take to mean that system which solves a moral problem with ease, lack of confusion and accuracy.  That said, it solves the moral problem.  I argue that Deontological sytems are no better than Teleological ethical systems and instead one should opt for a Hybrid ethical system such as Situation Ethics thus to be the 'best' system for moral problem solving. 

I will prove this by showing how the weaknesses of Deontological and Telelogical ethical systems can be refuted by the adoption of a Hybrid system, and thus that Deontological ethical systems are no better than Teleological ethical systems. 

Deontological ethical systems hold that actions are inherently right or wrong, this means that regardless of the consequences to a particular action the value of the act remains as it was. For instance; murder could produce good consequences, but the act itself still remains in the eyes of the system wrong, despite it's consequences. Thus deontological ethical systems are rule based; such systems include, Kant's Categorical Imperative or Aquinas's Natural moral law. 

On the other hand teleological ethical systems distinguish whether an action is right by the consequences a particular action produces. Thus no action is in itself right or wrong.  An example of a teleological ethical system is; Bentham's Utilitarianism.