Utilitarianism and deontological ethics offer contrasting frameworks for addressing moral dilemmas in public decision-making. Utilitarianism, as articulated by Bentham and Mill, emphasizes maximizing overall happiness, often guiding public policies that prioritize outcomes over individual right. In contrast, deontological ethics, rooted in Kantian philosophy, insists on adherence to duty and moral principles regardless of the consequences. Public policy, from healthcare to criminal justice, frequently moves between these ethical paradigms. For instance, utilitarian-driven policies may endorse cost-benefit analyses in environmental regulation, prioritizing efficiency and collective well-being over environmental justice. Conversely, deontological approaches resist such trade-offs, instead emphasizing the inviolability of human rights, as seen in international human rights frameworks. Despite the strength of utilitarianism in policy flexibility, it often faces criticism for justifying morally questionable actions, such as sacrificing minority welfare for the greater good. On the other hand, deontology's strict adherence to principles can hinder pragmatic decision-making in public contexts where outcomes cannot be ignored. This study critically appraises both ethical frameworks comparatively, arguing for a broader analytic approach that considers the merits of each in modern public decision-making, especially in the face of complex social justice issues.