Are our actions ultimately right or wrong depending on the overall number of people helped or hurt, whatever our intentions. Or is the morality of our actions to be decided by our intentions? And do you really have to choose?
If niether of the above, how would you say the morality of an was defined?
I have tended to come down on the side of deontology in this area, but i have never come to a satisfactory conclusion. Has anyone else constructed their own answer to this age old question?

I don't think that deontology has to do with intentions, because, as it is said, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". And, a wonderful depiction of this is to be found in Jane Austen's Emma. Deontology (anyway, Kant's version) concerns motives, not intentions.

John Stuart Mill held that Kant confused judging the action with judging the agent. We judge the action by its consequences for human happiness. We judge the agent by his motives.

Sorry, linguistic error, i'll replace intentions with motives.

Yes, but Kant had some interesting views on morality... i recall that according to him compassion should play no part, truely moral actions should be undertaken purely out of duty. I'm not sure i 100% subscribe to this view, because, although it seems good in theory, i'm not sure that anyone other than the Ghandi's and mother Theresa's of this world act morally purely out of duty.
In my experience compassion always plays some part, and a large part at that.

Well, the distinction between intentions and motives is considerable. Intentions concern consequences, motives don't.

Kant was, of course talking about what "morality requires". Not about what we actually do. And, I would not be so sure about Gandhi's compassion as you seem to be. Nor, indeed, Mother Theresa's

Christopher Hitchens Interview

Yes i know, but my point is that surely in stating what morality requires, one should have some intention to act accordingly. After all, surely morality without the corresponding actions is meaningless? [emphasis added]
I was simply using them as examples of people who seemed to act out of duty a lot of the time, and pointing out that such people are very rare.

Extinguish all the warm feelings and prepossessions in favour of virtue, and all disgust or aversion to vice: render men totally indifferent towards these distinctions; and morality is no longer a practical study, nor has any tendency to regulate our lives and actions.

You are making me think of Hume, and why he thought that sentiments were essential to morality. If you have no desire to act, you will not act no matter what matters of fact you know. When in the middle of the street, seeing a car speeding towards you, that fact alone is not enough to get you to move; it is the desire to not be struck by the car that makes the fact relevant, and gets one to move out of the way (or at least, to try to get out of the way).

I agree with you here, because although some say that in theory, to be seen as moral, an action should involve no personal sentiments, in practice it seems to be a little less black and white than this. I think an interesting question to ask would be 'would you still act morally if you had no conscience, or if you would not feel guilty if you didn't?'

Are our actions ultimately right or wrong depending on the overall number of people helped or hurt, whatever our intentions. Or is the morality of our actions to be decided by our motives? And do you really have to choose?
If niether of the above, how would you say the morality of an was defined?
I have tended to come down on the side of deontology in this area, but i have never come to a satisfactory conclusion. Has anyone else constructed their own answer to this age old question?