I think it also depends on what model of morality you subscribe to.
In the consequentialist framework, there is a best action in the set of your possible actions, and that’s what you should do. (Though we may argue that no person chooses the best action consistently all the time, and thus we are all bad.)
In the deontologist framework, sometimes all your possible actions either break some rule, or neglect some duty, if you get into a bad situation where the only possible way to fulfill a duty is to break a rule. (Here it is possible to turn all duties up to 11, so it becomes impossible for everyone to fulfill them.)
I think you get similar answers whether consequentialist or deontological.
Consequentialist: the consequences end up terrible irrespective of your actions.
Deontological: the set of rules and duties is contradictory (as you suggest) or requires superhuman control over your environment/society, or your subconscious mind.
I think it also depends on what model of morality you subscribe to.
In the consequentialist framework, there is a best action in the set of your possible actions, and that’s what you should do. (Though we may argue that no person chooses the best action consistently all the time, and thus we are all bad.)
In the deontologist framework, sometimes all your possible actions either break some rule, or neglect some duty, if you get into a bad situation where the only possible way to fulfill a duty is to break a rule. (Here it is possible to turn all duties up to 11, so it becomes impossible for everyone to fulfill them.)
I think you get similar answers whether consequentialist or deontological.
Consequentialist: the consequences end up terrible irrespective of your actions.
Deontological: the set of rules and duties is contradictory (as you suggest) or requires superhuman control over your environment/society, or your subconscious mind.