Well, MD and MR are typically opposed, because they represent more or less opposite approaches to moral thinking. Of course, in real life, most of us use some combination of the two, and although we may not think about how we navigate that consciously, there's a lot of unconscious negotiation that goes on between those two approaches. We have pretty clear ideas about what we think is right and wrong, but we weigh the significance of each rule on a case by case basis, based on what we think is actually important in practice. If we don't feel very strongly about a particular rule, we relegate it to some degree of MR. People who call themselves moral relativists display their hypocrisy when they judge another person - and they all do, at some threshold. They call themselves moral relativists because they don't want to be subject to judgment by others, but they themselves cannot help but judge others, because the propensity to judge is built into the fundamental nature of consciousness itself. The fallback argument, of course, is the utilitarian one, in which they declare that the judged is so because they have violated the common good in some way. But by doing that, they miss the fact that as soon as they appeal to a common good that takes the demands of individual independence into account, their utilitarian vision collapses into a values based dialectic. On the other hand, strict deontologists show that they really aren't as principled as they present themselves, because they all tell the occasional white lie, or bend the rules here and there, if not for themselves, then for someone they care about. This, also, is not something they can help. Every deontology is, in practice, override-able, if it conflicts with what they think is best in the interests of themselves or someone they care about. This reveals an underlying root to their deontological system, which is protect what is valued. As soon as that is revealed, their deontology likewise immediately reveals itself to be dependent on a set of subjective values.

As to your personal example, that is an example, I think, of a deontology revealing itself to be values based. You would not lie to someone you care about, because you want to deal with them on the basis of honesty, and if you violated that, it would ultimately lead to an alienation. You also wouldn't lie to a stranger, because if it was you accosting someone you didn't know, you would want them to be truthful to you, and you have a level of empathy that makes you feel that lying to this stranger is wrong. But when someone wants to do you harm, there is no basis for dealing with them in good faith, and so there is no empathic or affinitive impulse telling you it is wrong to lie. So you lie. What this reveals, in my opinion, is that it is by virtue of your empathy and affinity that you choose not to lie, not because lying is wrong in some objective sense. So then the rule you've made for yourself not to lie actually is contingent on a much more fundamental values based ethic.

Islam is very interesting as a religious system, because, much more so than any other modern religion, it seeks to encode in rules a moral sense. It is by far the most deontological religion in the world. But it is by reason of the very fact that it is so consciously and objectively laid out, that they are forced to encode exceptions that starkly reveal the underlying value system.

I will certainly let you know. Is there a way to tag people on this site? I'm still new here.