Is an "objective right or wrong" ethical philosophy the same as a "deontological" philosophy?

I've read through various philosophers on ethics, and I am an "objective right or wrong" type of ethical philosophy. Going to list most of the "objective right or wrong" philosophers I've read.<br><br>Plato (pretty close, and very interesting)<br><br>Kant (closer)<br><br>Mill (this is where I most agree)<br><br>Rawls (pretty close, and very interesting)<br><br>But then I go through, and arguments that I find against Kantianism, which is considered deontological, are also good points against my point of view. Stop.<br><br>The objective right or wrong methodology that I've landed on now, is that an action can be right from one perspective, and wrong from another perspective, but they're ultimately right and wrong in the same amount. This would also require that the sum of right and wrong is always constant through time. This isn't really deontological either.<br><br>The only one that I have found that is similar enough to this is Mill, and it's also a utilitarian philosophy, so I don't think it is truly "objective right and wrong" either.<br><br>What philosophers should I be looking into that might be closest to the way I think about right and wrong?