What is really at issue in this fundamental normative ethics question is deciding when and how an action takes on moral value. Is it with the act, or when there is a consequence? That suggests there is a space between the two that needs to be considered. So it seems to me the first thing to ask is whether such a space exists. We now tend to look at such dualisms as being based on false distinctions, with the observer/observed being a prominent one. Now we tend to think that the process of observation changes what is observed, which destroys any sharp distinction between the two. Similarly here we are being asked does the action stand alone, or is there an immediate or inescapable consequence that is an intrinsic part of the action, and vice versa.

In this kind of thing, I don't think there is a clear answer that necessarily applies across the board. For some actions, the consequence is immediate. So for those actions arguing that there is a sharp distinction would seem to be going down a false path. One could argue that the action and the consequence are part of a single unit. But for other actions the consequence will be delayed, and perhaps there could have been other consequences. And in those situations, it's hard to see how the action itself had independent moral standing, if it could have resulted in both good and bad outcomes. And if there can be an action that is morally neutral, but later ends up with a moral value, that would suggest that there is some merit to consequentialism, at least in some situations.

More significantly to me, I think this suggests that perhaps neither are the answer, which then gets into the whole false dichotomy issue. In other words, perhaps it is neither the action nor the outcome that is sufficient to produce moral value. Perhaps we see it as the action in some situations, but see it as the consequence in others. To me it suggests that the ethical nature of actions lies beneath the surface. I'm thinking here of Spinoza's answer to dualism. He viewed the mind and the body as different lenses through which a more basic underlying reality was being perceived. For him, it was all about God, but it need not lead to a religious interpretation. If ethics is a reflection of some more basic reality, then our language concepts of action and consequence are going end up being an insufficient way to access it, or fully understand it.