Trivial at one end, very involved at the other. I'm not sure the various methods of consequentializing that were suggested fare significantly better.
That bit was introduced in the same spirit as:
At which point "Why the hell would you want to do that?!" might be an appropriate response.
This was demonstrated, in a certain limited way, in Peterson (2009). See also Lowry & Peterson (2011).
The Peterson result provides an "asymmetry argument" in favor of consequentialism:
Another argument in favor of consequentialism has to do with the causes of different types of moral judgments: see Are Deontological Moral Judgments Rationalizations?
Update: see Carl's criticism.